sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Lincoln borrowed that from the Bible.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Chuck Schumer votes against a qualified nominee for justice because..."
- Thread starter whirlingmerc
- Start date
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm sure you think you understand what you think you said but is what you said what you really meant?
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Good, evil, left, right, breafast, dinner, what's the diff?
tytlyf
Not Religious
The parties are completely different. 1 party is all about Greed Over People
Republicans = corporate policies
Democrats = middle class policies
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I'm sure you see it that way. I see no duality in either party.
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
I have.
tytlyf
Not Religious
This can be measured by party policies. There are no middle class policies in the republican party.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Policies smologies. My life has been the same since the Nixon administration. What party difference?
tytlyf
Not Religious
You know, middle class policies. Wage increases, less taxes, education, healthcare, climate change, etc. Republicans are against those things.
sandy whitelinger
Veteran Member
Thanks for sharing that.
Do you think that’s an acceptable reason? I don’t.
He... he did.
“"(Obama) could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man," Hatch said in Newsmax, adding later, "He probably won't do that because this appointment is about the election." source
Garland was highly praised by Republicans. He was a non-controversial nominee with high credentials.
The problem wasn’t Garland. The problem wasnt that he couldn’t get through the Senate. With his credentials and bipartisan support, Garland likely would have been approved, but it was never allowed to be brought to a vote. They never even held hearings.
This had nothing to do with Obama picking a bad nominee. It had to do with Republicans willing to gamble on the election in an attempt to steal a Supreme Court seat. “... hours after Justice Antonin Scalia's death last February, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced that there would be no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever, on any Supreme Court nomination until the American people got to vote on a new president.” Source.
Please don’t revise history.
Oh? Did Merrick Garland make it through the senate process and become a SC justice?
Don't put words in my mouth.
It isn't a revision to point out a fact.
No, because the Republicans don't care about the Constitution when it interferes with their party.
The Republicans could have just followed the Constitution. President nominates a replacement and the Senate holds hearings and then votes.
But the Republicans found it more politically advantageous to ignore that. Like I said, the Republicans care more about partisan politics than the USA.
That's why I refuse to vote for any Republican candidate. This is not a new phenomenon. They've been getting more and more partisan since the 90s.
Tom
Why would you believe this? Nobody ever said that Garland was ideologically incompatible. The Senate majority simply decided not to hold a vote.
Because they didn't want Obama's bipartisan nominee to be considered.
Ironically, O'Connell said that he thought that the American people should get to vote on who nominated the SCOTUS judge. Which they did. And Trump lost by millions. Clinton won, when the American people voted as you'll recall.
Tom
As I said.
I wouldn't vote for 90+% of them, so I tend to agree. I don't mind Rand(hate if you want for that) and I've only ever voted for one of their presidential candidates. Believe it or not, I'm not a party guy.
Had Obama nominated Gorsuch, would the Republican led senate have approved him? The answer to that question is why.
I certainly don't believe there was some principled notion that the election should determine the appointment, it was ideology and political maneuvering.
A vote by the Senate is the process. The Republicans simply decided against the process, not Garland.
For those who don't remember what happened, Senate Republicans announced immediately that no matter who was nominated there would be no vote.
It was the Republicans putting party over country.
Again.
This has become such a consistent pattern I don't trust any Republican candidate to do what's in the best interests of the American people.
Although I will say, while I disagree with Rand about, well, pretty much everything, I will give him props for integrity.
Tom
You stated that Obama should have nominated someone who could get through the Senate. He did nominate someone who could. The fact is that the Republicans refused to hold any hearings, not because Obama didn’t nominate someone who couldn’t get through the Sentate, but because they decided that they wouldn’t approve anyone Obama nominated. Clearly, the issue was not Obama’s nominee.
Does that mean you believe the question is answered with a no?
That is why I support him. Well, I do agree a significant amount of the time with his views, but I enjoy knowing that when I do disagree with him, it is because he has a principled opposition.
No, I said the question of why Obama didn't pick someone who could make it through the senate is just as real a question as why the senate didn't let Garland through.
That is blatantly non-factual, as Obama nominated him and he didn't get through. Now, you can be upset that he couldn't get through and you can think it improper that he couldn't get though, but, he couldn't.
Your question implied that the Senate had a process and Garland didn't make it through the process. That didn't happen because the Republicans decided to ignore the Constitution in favor of partisanship.
Tom