Is Russia Our Enemy?

[WizardofOz]

Trying to see how that is relevant to the point I'm making. There is good justification for not allowing a vote on Garland. There is no good justification for filibustering Gorsuch.


Garland would have radically changed the balance of the court. Republicans have justification for blocking the nomination on that basis during an election year. If Scalia had died this year, and if Hillary had won and the Republicans lost control of the senate, they would have no justification for filibustering Garland since Hillary would have the right to change the court to her desire as long as Garland was judicially fit.

When I say a president has the right or not the right to a particular nomination, I don't mean legal , constitutional right. I mean by way of protocol or precedent. The forcing of the senate to vote for a man ideologically equal to Ginsburg during an election year is unprecedented and they had every right to deny his chance for a vote based on the break in precendence.

You were just saying that no president has seated or nominated during election years. Now you're suddenly so sure that none of those that were had been polarizing to the left or right? Do some reading on the issue you obviously had no clue about 10 minutes ago before you :blabla: any further.

 

[ClimateSanity]

You were just saying that no president has seated or nominated during election years. Now you're suddenly so sure that none of those that were had been polarizing to the left or right? Do some reading on the issue you obviously had no clue about 10 minutes ago before you :blabla: any further.

I was wrong. Can you get off that? I was making a quick post and made a claim because it contradicted the message I thought I had either heard or read before. Evidently, I didn't understand exactly the point they were making at the time as I am usualy doing something else when I hear these things.

I did do some reading after you pointed out my error. I realized the point I was making was mistaken, but I also knew that the reason I made the point in the first place was based on what I had read or heard before, and so I did some more research in non MSM sources and I found out the real reason for the refusal to allow a Garland vote.

You respond by saying I may be wrong in whether a past candidate was just as polarizing in the past. The issue is not polarization; the issue is a clear voting record and record of past writings and or statements. Judicial nominees prior to the nomination of Bork were not terribly opposed in the past. The democrat need to control the ideological standing was not as great in the past as it has been since Reagan took office. Its been a metaphorical fight to the death since that point. Prior to the point, in my understanding of history, the fight for the ideological stand of the court was not as heated and the thought that the president had the right to choose whomever he saw as fit was the prevailing attitude.

 

[ClimateSanity]

You were just saying that no president has seated or nominated during election years. Now you're suddenly so sure that none of those that were had been polarizing to the left or right? Do some reading on the issue you obviously had no clue about 10 minutes ago before you :blabla: any further.

I make posts initially on instinct because there is limited time and my instincts are usually correct and I know if I am responding to a liberal, the narrative they are pushing is wrong even if they may be right in some technicality. They will make some statement that is correct but really doesn't make the point they are pushing. That's when I will fire off a shot really quickly just to get the conversation moving. You guys will jump on some technicality and show the error which then makes it easier for research to start instead of just starting from scratch. This is exactly what I did this time and it resulted in me successfully refuting your narrative which was the goal from my very first post.

 

[Foxfire]

I was wrong.

Fair enough. :thumb:

 

[ClimateSanity]

Fair enough. :thumb:

And you cut off the point of my post, which is typical. This is exactly what the MSM does. They mislead their audience by limiting pertinent information that contradicts their narrative.

 

[Foxfire]

And you cut off the point of my post

Yeah, the way that point was waving around there, I was afraid you might poke ur eye out with it. lain:

 

[kmoney]

It's not the fact that Obama made a supreme Court nomination during an election year that's at issue. It's the fact that he nominated someone almost further ideologically left than anyone on the court. If placed on the court, Garland would have radically shift the Court to the left.

Here is a quote from the NYT:
"The chart published by the*Times*on March 16, 2016, demonstrated that Garland was to the*left*of two of the court’s current liberals –*Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan*–*and a virtual match for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, leaving only Sonia Sotomayor slightly to the left of him."

That's what is unprecedented about the Garland pick. He was the first nomination that would radically change the courts balance to be nominated in an election year.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

You might have a point if Scalia died a couple months before the election, but it was way before that. The President doesn't lose the ability to lead on Jan 1st of an election year. And the Republicans didn't even give a hearing on Garland. They stonewalled him completely. They could have at least done a hearing to see what he had to say and then voted against him if they didn't like him. If you think McConnell actually cares about giving the voters a voice then I think you are extremely naive. It was political ureX: and nothing more.

 

[ClimateSanity]

You might have a point if Scalia died a couple months before the election, but it was way before that. The President doesn't lose the ability to lead on Jan 1st of an election year. And the Republicans didn't even give a hearing on Garland. They stonewalled him completely. They could have at least done a hearing to see what he had to say and then voted against him if they didn't like him. If you think McConnell actually cares about giving the voters a voice then I think you are extremely naive. It was political ureX: and nothing more.

You obviously didn't read my post or failed to understand it or else you would not have commented as you did.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[kmoney]

You obviously didn't read my post or failed to understand it or else you would not have commented as you did.

Sent from my XT1254 using TheologyOnline mobile app

What did I fail to understand? You think Obama was trying to radically change the court in an election year and you think that goes against protocol. I was giving a response to that.

 

[ClimateSanity]

And the Republicans didn't even give a hearing on Garland.

They could have at least done a hearing to see what he had to say and then voted against him if they didn't like him.

If you think McConnell actually cares about giving the voters a voice then I think you are extremely naïve..

Those three comments show you didn't understand what I said.

There is a reason I gave concerning why republicans didn't give Garland a chance. Did you miss it?

As for McConnell, I said that he knew he could possibly lose the senate if all republicans voted against Garland. That is because the MSM had already established the narrative that Garland was a mainstream candidate not that different from Scalia.

 

[kmoney]

There is a reason I gave concerning why republicans didn't give Garland a chance. Did you miss it?

If you mean the thing from the NYT then no I didn't miss it.

As for McConnell, I said that he knew he could possibly lose the senate if all republicans voted against Garland. That is because the MSM had already established the narrative that Garland was a mainstream candidate not that different from Scalia.

Wouldn't it be nice if elected officials didn't act based on the next election cycle? (not that they would have wanted Garland anyway) That's actually a criticism of democracy that I heard recently. It leads people to be short-sighted.

 

[Town Heretic]

Trying to see how that is relevant to the point I'm making. There is good justification for not allowing a vote on Garland. There is no good justification for filibustering Gorsuch.

No, there wasn't/yes there was, in order.

Garland would have radically changed the balance of the court.

That's not a good reason. Like saying you're against an election because you'd lose.

Every president has the right to appoint and to have their nominees voted on. True regardless of which party occupies the White House. It's the lowest sort of politics.

When I say a president has the right or not the right to a particular nomination, I don't mean legal , constitutional right.

Then you're just finding a way to justify what shouldn't be. It's all the rage among the right these days.

 

[ok doser]

Every president has the right to appoint and to have their nominees voted on.

Unless they're black

Or half black

 

[ClimateSanity]

Unless they're black

Or half black

I live in his head rent free.

 

[Rusha]

Of course Russia is our enemy. IF they are unable to get those much *deserved* sanctions lifted, the guy they put into office will soon find out just how much of an enemy they are ...

 

[ClimateSanity]

Of course Russia is our enemy. IF they are unable to get those much *deserved* sanctions lifted, the guy they put into office will soon find out just how much of an enemy they are ...

Any country we put harsh sanctions on will act like our enemy. Is China our enemy? Do you really think Russia is the only country deserving of sanctions? Iranian IEDs killed thousands of our soldiers. Are they our enemy? Where are there sanctions?

 

[ClimateSanity]

Ukraine is next door to Russia. They must have a friendly government in Ukraine or else Russia will feel rightly threatened. A duly elected president was forcibly removed from office with the help of the Democrats and CIA and globalists. Would you not take steps to lessen that threat?

 

[Town Heretic]

I live in his head rent free.

Which is odd given how much room you must have in your own.

Of course Russia is our enemy. IF they are unable to get those much *deserved* sanctions lifted, the guy they put into office will soon find out just how much of an enemy they are ...

You'd think. . . Now if only they would.

 

[rexlunae]

Ukraine is next door to Russia. They must have a friendly government in Ukraine or else Russia will feel rightly threatened. A duly elected president was forcibly removed from office with the help of the Democrats and CIA and globalists. Would you not take steps to lessen that threat?

Ukraine is entitled to pick its own government, and Russia is not entitled to annex its territory no matter how anxious Putin is.

 

[Rusha]

You'd think. . . Now if only they would.

That would be rather ... amusing. Call it karma ... or just deserts should Wiki Leaks (who Donald JUST LOVES) start publishing HIS dirt. Trump partnered up with a guy who is more intelligent and even more devious than he is ...