-->
@bmdrocks21
Did you pay attention to the "Biden Rule?"
Famous speech after failed Johnson impeachment.
Posts
Total:
41
-->
@Greyparrot
It is not appointing a new justice near the end of a presidential term, isn't it?
-->
@bmdrocks21
yep.
-->
@Greyparrot
And that is exactly what McConnell did, wasn't it?
-->
@bmdrocks21
yep.
-->
@bmdrocks21
His entire post was about how this doesn't break precedent.
If you read his post, you'll find out that it does break precedent but blames it on the democrats. Which is a lazy justification for breaking precedent.
I think you are confusing us. Your argument thus far is Orange man and McConnell bad for breaking precedent and stacking. Having a 5-4 majority is far from stacking lmao.
Having a 5-4 majority is sufficient for conservative leaning judgments. Whether or not the supreme court is filled with a 9-0 or a 5-4 majority is entirely irrelevant because in either-case a particular agenda can be pushed unevenly, which is the entire point of court stacking.
I have offered the job security point, which is the entire point of life terms.
This is trivially mitigated by sane implementation which is why I told you to stop being lazy and actually think about the points you make.
I'm sorry that having justices with brains triggers you.
What triggers me is you having an opinion on a topic you clearly know very little about. And then when I challenge your opinion on the basis that the status quo also has the same problems, you just keep deflecting.
-->
@Greyparrot
@bmdrocks21
The Biden rule isn't actually a thing, and is a flimsy pretext for the Republican stonewalling.
The actual intent for the suggestion was either the president to hold off on an appointment until the election was over, or for the president to consult with congress or to seat a moderate. In this case, I do believe Garland is a moderate and was also a passing suggestion from McConnell in the first place.
Apart from this it's plainly obvious that it was a flimsy pretext because he has no qualms about ignoring the so called Biden rule when it suits him
-->
@dustryder
Joe Biden said, “It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
-->
@dustryder
Ok, so how is having a majority bad? Judges, essentially are either liberal or conservative- you either define the constitution based on what it was meant to be or what you think it should be. So, there by definition has to be an ideological majority. Now, Chief Justice Roberts is a bit of a swing vote nowadays, so it really isn't an issue.
You had no idea about precedent. You foolishly claimed that the Republicans in 2016 were the first group to ever violate this "gentlemens' handshake" and that McConnell violated precedent. You got proven wrong. I'd propose that you admit you were ignorant of the facts instead of digging a deeper hole for yourself.
-->
@Greyparrot
“If the President consults and cooperates with the Senate, or moderates his selections… then his nominees may enjoy my support, as did Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.”
So to be clear. The justification is poor
1. Because the "Biden" rule was never actually put into practice
2. Because the 2016 example doesn't actually follow the so called "Biden" rule
3. And as demonstrated before, it was a flimsy pretext for advancing Republican goals anyway as evidenced by the subsequent declaration of intent to ignore the Biden rule should it prove advantageous
-->
@bmdrocks21
As I said before, I don't think having a majority conservative or liberal as bad at all. The issue to me is hijacking the process and cheating to get there. While you are correct that Roberts tends to be more swingy and tries to be non-partisan, it does not change the fact that ultimately he leans conservative, making the entire SCOTUS lean conservative.Ok, so how is having a majority bad? Judges, essentially are either liberal or conservative- you either define the constitution based on what it was meant to be or what you think it should be. So, there by definition has to be an ideological majority. Now, Chief Justice Roberts is a bit of a swing vote nowadays, so it really isn't an issue.
You had no idea about precedent. You foolishly claimed that the Republicans in 2016 were the first group to ever violate this "gentlemens' handshake" and that McConnell violated precedent. You got proven wrong. I'd propose that you admit you were ignorant of the facts instead of digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Not really. The democrats have never violated the "gentleman's handshake". I do not view a suggestion via negotiation and compromise as equivalent to the action of actually hijacking the process through bogus pretext.