So, considering that Trump has floated (in the past week) putting Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz on the court, you're cool with either of those?
and I suppose you would support a right leaning judge even if left leaning politicians take the executive and both house and senate?
Trump said Cruz's father killed JFK and called Cruz's wife "ugly." Cruz's response was to lick Trump's boots. Do you really want someone on the highest court in the land who is unwilling to stand up to the President, regardless of party?
I do not want the orange moron to get another SCOTUS pick. Ginsburg was hanging on by sheer force of will trying to prevent that from happening. Altho that two-faced rat-bastard piece of shit McConnell has, not surprisingly, reversed his deeply held convictions about outgoing Presidents and Supreme Court nominations. Color me fucking shocked.
If someone doesn't have the balls to stand up to Trump, they don't have the balls to stand up to any President, regardless of party or agenda.
You're not supposed to say that out loud, dicknuts But then, you've always been a toadie who hides behind bigger, louder personalities, so this isn't a shock at all.
I liked Pete Buttigeg’s proposal. Expand the court to 15. Nominate a number of liberal justices to equal the number of conservative justices and require them to generate a list of justices they agree on unanimously. Repeat this process every time there’s an opening. I’d really like it if Justices had 10 year terms, but that would require a constitutional amendment.
The biggest example of judicial activism came from SCOTUS conservatives. First in the form of Citizen’s United and later when the gutted the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Scalia wrote the opinion for both of them... he actually said he had to do because no elected lawmaker would dare do it. But of course, you don’t care about that.
Obama had to deal with a GOP majority Senate since 2010. Even if RBG retired, they would’ve pulled an additional Merrick Garland.
Lifetime appointments to places like SCOTUS seem to be a weird hangover of the US having written the political rules when monarchy was more important.
10 quatloos he tries to nominate Bill Barr. Maybe we don’t find out about it at the time, it waits until the next round of tell-all books, but I can all but guarantee he’s thinking about it.
Merrick Garland? Everyone knew Mitch would pull this shit if RBG died during the latter part of Trump's term. But it didn't matter, because Hillary just rubbed some people the wrong way. Oh, and EMAILS!!! Americans planning on voting third party or not at all because Biden isn't their preferred candidate, take heed. This is what happens when the perfect is the enemy of the good.
Sure, Mitch is going to be a huge hypocrite. But, don't look now...so is everyone on the other side, who are now saying the appointment needs to wait until after the inauguration next year.
What Socialist Agenda???? Bernie lost. Warren lost. Biden isn't going to defund the police. He denounces rioting by the BLM. I'm not seeing the socialism.
Of course not. I will remind you of what you said in another thread: That is why you should care. Because while I didn't like Scalia (to name but one justice), at least he had a spine, which is more than I can say for Cruz. Now, to take you at your word for supporting Libertarian ideals, you are as opposed to the government handing out welfare to large corporations as you are to individuals. Cruz is most assuredly in favor of government handouts to corporations while vehemently opposed to those given to individuals. Why is this preferable to you? I understand that the ideal choice for you isn't available, but why should one pick supporting a corporation (to the point where it prevents other corporations from competing against them) over human beings? Sure, by saving GM you're protecting the jobs of hundreds of thousands of people, but for the same amount of money that the government has given to GM over the years (and the '08 bailout wasn't the only time they got money from the government), you could have supported millions more people if the government had just cut them all a check.
The other side lost. The precedent has been set. They're literally using Mitches own words, verbatim, against him. That's not hypocrisy. That's just rubbing Mitches nose in it.
Of course it's hypocrisy. Both sides are arguing the exact opposite of how they argued before. The only consistency is that the arguments seem to coincide with political interest. There's no principle here, only craven politics. On BOTH sides. We've got a knife fight going on between left and right in this country...OF COURSE everyone's going to act in their own political interest. If you maintain that's not the case, that it's just Democrats, as you.put it, "rubbing Mitch's nose in it," then you're not a hypocrite, you'd just unprincipled.
