By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NightlyPoe said:
Mr_Destiny said:
@NightlyPoe

Biden did not make this rule. He said that it would be unfair to the electorate for one party to replace its aging justices during the lame duck session after being voted out of power, creating a situation where the partisan makeup of the court cannot change regardless of how the people vote. Surely you can see the difference.

That is false.  Biden's speech was about the timeframe before the election, not after.

My mistake. I should have double checked.

Biden said: "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

And if such resignation happens "tomorrow [June 26, 1992], or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer..." when the "political season is under way" to avoid partisan posturing and rancor.

So according to the Biden Rule, which arguably does not even apply if a vacancy occurs at the end of winter, McConnell was supposed to hold hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland after the election. Which he didn't.

So now we have the McConnell Rule, in which eight-and-a-half months is too close to the election to name a Justice, but one-and-a-half is plenty of time.

Quotations are from http://web.archive.org/web/20200817160203/https://www.politifact.com/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

Last edited by Mr_Destiny - on 21 September 2020

Around the Network

If you're more worried about Democrats than a "temporary" Trump presidency, consider the following:

The article's paywalled, but the thread has excerpts.

Basically, Trump has as little "respect for the Constitution" as levels last seen in the 1860s, the amount of corruption and self-dealing are as bad as under Harding in the 1920s, and we're on the same path as Hungary or Turkey.

These findings are from V-Dem, or Varieties of Democracy, a group of thousands of experts across the world who collect data to categorize governments and autocracies.

The 80% chance of an autocratic regime comes from this study:

http://web.archive.org/web/20200309235145/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13510347.2019.1582029





NightlyPoe said:
vivster said:

We currently have the legislative branch fighting against the executive branch over who gets to control the judicial branch.

???

No we don't.  The roles are clearly delineated.  President nominates and the Senate confirms or doesn't.

The squabbling is all intra-branch.  Namely the Senate deciding whether or not they'll take up the nomination.  The president has no control over such matters and hasn't claimed to possess it.

Thecnicaly is there something wrong about trump selecting a new member for the supreme court right now? I know it is unfortunate for the far left that she died right now (to be fair she should have resigned under obama) and we are a few weeka from the election, but I believe there is nothing wrong trump selecting someone right now correct?



Just re-tagging this thread because it fell to the bottom of my buddy and I'm too lazy to do a deep-dig on it later.

Still maintaining that 90% of the reason modern republican values and arguments are perpetuated is because it's easier to shout something wrong but simple than it is to actually understand what you're talking about and have a nuanced, mature conversation on the matter. Ignorance is easy to swallow when your diet is predicated on emotions and knee-jerk reactions instead of context-sensitive truth and expertise.



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Around the Network
CaptainExplosion said:

To those who still think I don't know real fascism, take a good look at this.

He is once again doing what tyrants do. This, along with no officers being directly charged with murdering Breonna Taylor, is further proof that America has become a racist dictatorship.

Keep in mind ABC is a slightly left-leaning source and thus the interpretation of these facts might be biased! From what I can tell you can't skew a speech without edits, but still. 



My Console Library:

PS5, Switch, XSX

PS4, PS3, PS2, PS1, WiiU, Wii, GCN, N64 SNES, XBO, 360

3DS, DS, GBA, Vita, PSP, Android

Trump overtly celebrates violence against the press.

https://youtu.be/At7n8LMn94A



CaptainExplosion said:

To those who still think I don't know real fascism, take a good look at this.

He is once again doing what tyrants do. This, along with no officers being directly charged with murdering Breonna Taylor, is further proof that America has become a racist dictatorship.

Wow... I almost wish America was really a racist dictatorship so you could see the real difference. I can guarantee you a racist dictatorship is slightly different from what America is today. 



EnricoPallazzo said:
NightlyPoe said:

???

No we don't.  The roles are clearly delineated.  President nominates and the Senate confirms or doesn't.

The squabbling is all intra-branch.  Namely the Senate deciding whether or not they'll take up the nomination.  The president has no control over such matters and hasn't claimed to possess it.

Thecnicaly is there something wrong about trump selecting a new member for the supreme court right now? I know it is unfortunate for the far left that she died right now (to be fair she should have resigned under obama) and we are a few weeka from the election, but I believe there is nothing wrong trump selecting someone right now correct?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in an interview in 2016 that the President of the United States is elected for 4 years, not 3 years.  And that a President in the 4th year of his term (referring to Obama at the time) is well within his constitutional rights to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill a vacant seat.  And that it is also within the Senate's right to confirm or decline that nomination.  She didn't agree with the Republican Senate's position in 2016, but she confirmed that there was nothing wrong with it constitutionally on either side.



CaptainExplosion said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

Wow... I almost wish America was really a racist dictatorship so you could see the real difference. I can guarantee you a racist dictatorship is slightly different from what America is today. 

Well look at this.

A key aspect of any dictatorship, racist or otherwise, is police enacting violence against civilians while they're done.

He was on the ground, and AN OFFICER RAN OVER HIS HEAD.

So you beat down on people, and then one of them runs off and collapses from it.

As your moveing forwards with your bikes, you see a man laying there, and you just casually run over him (his head) with your bike?
Holy facking sh*t.... how can anyone do that to another person?
I dont think I could ever do that, even to someone I was angry at or had a fight with ect.
There are just some things you dont do, and that is one of them.

Its crazy to see police officers acting this way.