What is fundaementally wrong with that saying? You do know the judges don't litigate the cases right?
Amy Barrett
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
What is fundaementally wrong with that saying? You do know the judges don't litigate the cases right?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Garland should have been confirmed, as should Barrett. Pretty shameful that every Democrat in the Senate is a partisan hack and not a single one voted to confirm a qualified candidate.
I'm not giving Trump a pass at all; just explaining what he did and why he did it. We are not going to get a good and meaningful healthcare insurance plan the way things are currently constructed.
Republicans and Democrats have both been ineffective and tone deaf. They also are pawns to the lobbyists.
And you're right. Obama was a lousy leader and got nothing done, outside of the ACA which made insurance companies, pharma, attorneys and med device companies a lot of freaking money and cost the consumer more. Well done Barry!
So what is the correction of the Garland situation though?
The correction should have been Republicans coming out and saying what they did with Garland was wrong, and that there is no election year rule and they will consider the nominee after the election because of the prior precedent but this will not be a rule going forward.
Republicans screwed up royally the first 2 years when they held the Senate, the House, and the Presidency. It should've been done those first 2 years. They had 6 years to have a plan in place for the moment they held all 3. No excuse.
Nobody ever flips the switch on the dems. What about their fight to get Garland confirmed. On principle, they aren't too solid as they changed their stance because they lost? They were fighting for a vote in 2016, if they want the Republicans to hold true to their stance, shouldn't they hold true too?
Right, but when it came to Obama you ignored all of the context around the issues because "leaders get stuff done" etc.. Just call it as it is. It is a failure that he didn't propose something when they had a chance to pass something.
lots of people have free or assisted payment healthcare. how will they pay for it when its taken away?
The problem is that in 2016 democrats were correct. Garland should have been considered.
In 2020, given the context of 2016, democrats are right to be upset that republicans are pushing through a nominee when 60 million people have already voted in an election.
If 2016 didn't happen, democrats would be wrong now. But we can't just pretend 2016 didn't happen and move on.
yup. everyone is trying to compare them as equal. they arent. this election already has more submitted entries than last election. it potentially could already be over.
Can't forget that it was the Dems that changed the voting rule in 2013 (lead by Harry Reid) and went with the nuclear option changing the Senate procedures on the 60 vote rule on exec and judicial appointments. They did that because they had a small majority in Senate but did not have the 60 votes. That is where all of this started. Then the Repubs followed suit extending it to Supreme Court nominees under McConnel.
Both parties guilty of mad partisanship. This did not start with Garland at all and I agree there should have been a vote and McConnel screwed that up.
Both parties guilty of mad partisanship. This did not start with Garland at all and I agree there should have been a vote and McConnel screwed that up.
The argument that people have already voted is complete and utter crap. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The president's term runs from 1/20/17 to 1/20/21. The people elected him for that term and any vacancy that comes up during that time is his obligation to fill.
The process became partisan well before Garland.
What happened with Garland was wrong and I said so at the time, not Monday morning quarterbacking like many here do.
What happened with Barrett was correct.
then why did they rush at all time speed to get her in? another month would have been normal and he still would have additional month left in his term.
unless they were rushing in case he lost the election. so yea maybe it isnt crap.
His plan was ill-conceived and he should have focused his priorities elsewhere to actually get something done. Got bad advice and pushed through a piece of crap that added layers of cost that had nothing to do with care.
I agree it's a crap argument unless you consider the context of 2016.
If we pretend 2016 never happened, then there is no issue with 2020.
Again. Democrats were the ones that were wronged in 2016.
What is the correction? Nothing?
Maybe both sides can start acting like adults; but if you keep voting for them....
There is no correction! Only a partisan would think there has to be a "correction." Two wrongs don't make a right. This nomination followed the constitutional process.
i think you know the answer and it makes what merge is saying relevant. but yea everyone is a hack. at this point its "dont hate the player hate the game"
Like I said. I think waiting until after the election for confirmation would have been a correction and not against the constitutional process to do so. That would have been the least partisan correction possible.
Since this question is politically focused/loaded, the correction is win the presidency and control the senate.
That doesn’t change a generational shift on the court.
A correction would be (if they win the senate) DC and PR statehood or an expansion of the Supreme Court.
Bingo factory for judicial nominations and confirmations, no legislating going on, and we have people on this very board that feel republicans have handled the country well the last 7 months
Schatz and Hirano may be the two biggest kooks in the senate (not a good look for Hawaii), and that's saying a lot in a body with Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumer, Dick Blumenthal, Kamala Harris and Tom Cotton.
Was there a lot of legislation going on during the three years of impeachment investigations and hearings?
Again this started in 2013 when the Dems took the nuclear option and it just got worse from there.
Ignoring Covid-19 relief is a big miss by BOTH parties. There were compromises made but the Dems want the White House and did not want checks going out to voters with DT's name on it. The Dems were never going to settle on stimulus prior to the election unless they got their way 100%. That is how Pelosi rolls. Big miss though by BOTH parties as Americans suffer. Tells you all you need to know about our Senate and Congress. They suck!
Ignoring Covid-19 relief is a big miss by BOTH parties. There were compromises made but the Dems want the White House and did not want checks going out to voters with DT's name on it. The Dems were never going to settle on stimulus prior to the election unless they got their way 100%. That is how Pelosi rolls. Big miss though by BOTH parties as Americans suffer. Tells you all you need to know about our Senate and Congress. They suck!
You are likely a terrible person...i am not saying i need it but i am saying it should be a uniformed, available option for people that do seek it
if they followed standard procedure i actually think thats the exact timeline that would have happened.
politics is such a prisoners dilemma that nobody will ever pick a candidate for the greater good. we know nobody will work together anyway.
whats the plan to do this? how quickly? even a few months of buying healthcare out of pocket until its implemented would be catastrophic for a lot of people.
idea sounds great. whats the plan?
sounds like some trump BS.
its very easy, believe me, not hard at all. but THEY wont do it!
yea ok. its ok to say that there isnt one and not having one is the worst case scenario.