Do you have Ted Cruz's rebuttle? That yes there is money poured in but the money the democrats get 3 times the amount as republicans.
You, the American people, don't deserve to know
- Thread starter SHUHoopsFan
- Start date
eh, religion tends to get in the way of people's self interest. it isnt about what they would do its about what god would do.
It absolutely happens on both sides.
Point being that most people don't quite understand how much influence and money these outside groups have. The only reason this hearing is happening so quickly is because of that influence and money.
Shows why citizens united is horrendous.
What kind of blinders do you think people have on? Maybe you can inform them with some breaking news next that lobbyists control politicians. Earth shattering.
A
anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0
Guest
He did and identified why so much dark money is out there. And then Ted Cruz did a great job identifying the fact that there is 3 times more dark money for Democratic causes than what Whitehouse spoke of. Why won't either say it is a problem on both sides because it is? To what extent it is true (and I do not doubt either one of them) this is a huge problem and is not good for you and I or the American people. The folks with big money always win unfortunately and there is too much dark money in politics and not sure how we put the cat back in the bag. Even Lindsay Graham said there is too much dark money and Bloomberg mentioned it in the debates when he just about said he bought a bunch of seats in Congress (I know of two in NJ alone - Kim and Sherrill).
A formal one? No there isn’t... but the senate doesn’t just rely on formal rules. They operate under norms and traditions and pretended to create a new one 4 years ago.
“Rarely does a Supreme Court vacancy occur in the final year of a presidential term … Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in...
The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
-McConnell
“…If there’s a Republican President… and a vacancy occurs in the last year… you can say, Lindsay Graham said let’s let the next President, whoever that may be, make that nomination, and you could use my words against me and you’d be absolutely right.”
-Graham
“It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”
- Cruz
“A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”
- Grassley
Donald Trump used the final presidential debate with Hillary Clinton to declare he would keep the country “in suspense” over whether he would accept the outcome of November’s election.
Apparently the American people didn’t have the right to know whether a candidate for president was willing to accept the results of an election.
Both are wrong. Is anyone shocked by a politician, left or right. that refuses to let people know where they stand on an issue?
Because that would be looking at things in a bubble rather than in the context of what happened in 2016.
Without adding in the context - Democrats were correct in 2016. Republicans are correct in 2020.
The president serves a 4 year term. The senate is to advise and consent on court nominations.
Adding in the context of republicans blocking ANY 2016 nomination because of a "election year" rule (or norm, tradition...whatever) and promising that they would not be doing what they are doing right now... Democrats were right in 2016, but should absolutely now be arguing that what is happening now is wrong based on the 2016 precedent.
You're confusing an issue of policy and an issue of procedure. No different than every yankee fan was upset when they found out for sure the Astros cheated. If they found out the day of, you can guarantee they would've fought it. Unfortunately they found out too late. If you won't accept a result if cheating happened that's a little different than saying you don't have the right to know my policy.
Last edited:
R said it in 16 to get more people to vote. That’s what Ds are doing now. Merge I’m really surprised you’re still fighting this issue as if there’s some moral wrongdoing on one side only
Isn’t it interesting how the words of a man running for President, norms, and precedents have all of a sudden began to matter again for a certain population? What’s next, “discovering” a problem with government spending? Yes, that is next (only if Biden wins).
I'm not "fighting". Just explaining my position that, yes, the wrongdoing was on one side only.
Only one side blocked consideration of any nominee and left the court at 8 people for a year. Democrats have not done that. Maybe they would do the same thing given the same set of circumstances, but they haven't. The only time in recent history when Dems controlled the senate with a republican president, both nominations were considered and confirmed.
I have not watched a single minute of the hearings. But has anyone asked her about her experience practicing law? Her whole three years? Or are we to believe that someone pontificating in an academic setting is someone who is prepared to be a Supreme Court justice?
I’ve seen or listened to quite a bit of it, but no one has asked anything about her experience. Too busy grandstanding about the ACA and Roe v Wade. What’s clear is Barrett is infinitely smarter than anyone on the judiciary committee.
Just bizarre that Barrett has barely had the opportunity to speak.
Last edited:
Agree with your observation. They have hardly asked her any questions that she can actually answer as a sitting judge. Mostly grandstanding.
Its pretty clear the Dems know she will be confirmed and so they decided to make the best use of the air-time.
IMO, they are not coming across too well and their approach may backfire.
KH gave a campaign speech. I found it grating. I am sure some found it inspirational.
Agree with all of that. I don't think most of the Dems have come across well from what I was able to watch. I had to stop watching Harris. She was unprofessional and ineffective.
All confirmation hearing are little more than political grandstanding. Nominees do not answer any questions concerning constitutional issues. So what do you actually learn at these hearings? That they may know the law and how to avoid questions? Unfortunately, the Dems had an avenue of attack on Barrett but they blew it. Her lack of experience of actual practicing law is frightening. Those who spend their life in academia are locked in a mindset because they can be. This nominee seems to be in that mold. She is no doubt very intelligent and familiar with the law. But, without practical experience, you have no idea how the application of the law affects people. Their experience comes solely from a book and law review articles. To me, she should not be confirmed due to her lack of practical experience. Why in the world would the Dems not attack this is beyond me.
Did they actually think her huge three years of experience as an Appellate Court judge gave her the necessary practical experience? It is a pathetic pick not for the reasons proposed by the Dems but for the reasons I have set forth. Those who lack practical experience should not be on the bench. Heck, there is the survey in the national judicial college for state trial judges to have at least 10 years of trial experience. Lol, according to that, Barrett lacks the experience to be the model trial judge in the state system. This is a disturbing trend going on in the courts.
Did they actually think her huge three years of experience as an Appellate Court judge gave her the necessary practical experience? It is a pathetic pick not for the reasons proposed by the Dems but for the reasons I have set forth. Those who lack practical experience should not be on the bench. Heck, there is the survey in the national judicial college for state trial judges to have at least 10 years of trial experience. Lol, according to that, Barrett lacks the experience to be the model trial judge in the state system. This is a disturbing trend going on in the courts.
I agree with this. The strategy was more about grandstanding and making this more about the Presidential campaign (ACA), and their own individual races. Maybe they figured she is going to get confirmed anyway, so let’s just use the time to get messages out relating to the election.
Kagen actually has a little more practical experience. Her work in a law firm was too brief too merit her ascendency to the Supreme Court. Yes she spent much of her career in academia at Harvard. But here is what sets her apart. She did work for White House Counsel and more importantly as Solicitor General of the United States and argued 6 cases before the Supreme Court. Yes she is an academic as well but arguing 6 cases before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General get you over the finish line. I would say but for that experience as Solicitor General, I would agree with that she did not have the proper experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. The. Solicitor General position is one of the most prestigious jobs any attorney can be placed in. The fact that she argued that many cases before the SC, in my opinion is enough. However, I would understand that her experience in the practice of law was too limited to be on the bench as well
Amen to that. But again, it’s tough when money is able to have such an influence on who our choices are.
Trump is one of the most vial politicians in the history of our country. Biden, on the other hand, is just more of the same old politics.
I can’t get behind behind either of these losers.
Yes. Exactly.
Biden is the reset button to at least remove us from the stain of the most vile politician in the history of our country.
I'm not excited about Biden or Harris as politicians at all but I am excited that politics can be relatively boring again and we don't have to look at the president of the united states retweeting conspiracy theories like that the Navy Seals did not kill Bin Laden, and their predecessor plotted to kill Navy Seals... That in itself is absolutely insane but it's just so common with Trump that people are numb to it.
So you are continuing to support the bad behavior that you have agreed both parties are responsible.
Compared to what we have today? Absolutely!
I look at the options in front of me.
If I am offered ham and roast beef for lunch, I am not going to say turkey because I don't like roast beef but am allergic to ham... at the end of the day, I will be getting one of those two original options. If I prefer one over the other, then I should say so.
Tomorrow, I can work towards change or donate to causes which might change the menu... but today I will make my choice based on the only possible outcome.
My choice is a rejection of the most vile politician in American history.
Over the next 4 years, I will continue to support causes and people I believe in and when I am faced with another choice, I will again decide if I have a preference. If I do not, then I will vote 3rd party.
If you want to reduce it to that so you can sit on your high horse that you couldn't vote for politics as usual over insanity, sure.
