• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

What a constructive argument you make highlighting your own ignorance. I'll listen to you.
 
Naked politics. An R president with a D senate would have the same result.

Based on what? Not history.

Do you remember why Joe Biden ran Clarence Thomas' Senate confirmation hearing? Because the Democrat majority in the Senate allowed George H.W. Bush in his first term to nominate a justice and they held a vote. They could have held it until the 1992 Presidential Election with hopes that a Democrat would win. They didn't. They could have held up Anthony Kennedy. They didn't.
 
Thomas was nominated on July 1, 1991. Confirmed in October, 1991, a year before the election.
 
Kennedy was nominated in 1987. Do you read any history outside of the 1619 project or Howard Zinn?
 
So what history do you have to support your claim that Dem senators would hold up a Pub nominations? I just presented my best evidence to the contrary. You’ve presented your “both sides” opinion.

I have history. You’re making up history to support your perspective.
 
Last edited:
Holy Crap, the Bork nomination from Reagan? Again, you have no knowledge of any history. These are undisputed facts that happened.

And you were dead wrong on the last two claims you made. Unlike you, what did I make up?
 
Last edited:
Holy Crap, the Bork nomination from Reagan? Again, you have no knowledge of any history. These are undisputed facts that happened.

And you were dead wrong on the last two claims you made. Unlike you, what did I make up?

Are you fucking stupid? You claim is that Democratic senators would hold up any Republican nomination until an election regardless of who is it. You have no evidence of that. You want to believe Democrats would hold a nomination for 12+ months because you need to believe both sides are the same.

They didn’t vote for Bork because Bork is a piece of shit. Then they unanimously voted for Kennedy right afterward just like they voted unanimously for Scalia before Bork.

You don’t know your history. You’ve probably bought into that tale that Democrats screwed over Bork as some kind of partisan play. No. They did their job. Advice and consent. They had no problem with Scalia and Kennedy. Bork was a shit sandwich in the middle.

Pick an argument and stick with it. If you have no supporting evidence for your argument, then back off of it.
 
Yep...there’s no comparison between what happened with Bork and Garland.
 
Yep...there’s no comparison between what happened with Bork and Garland.

Garland didn’t even get a fucking hearing, you know, to learn if he should be confirmed. The Bork hearings showed that, no, he shouldn’t be confirmed.
 
Y’all are conveniently forgetting that in the 1780’s DemocRAT Thomas Jefferson and his ilk created the court out of thin air, even though they didn’t control the senate! In fact they created the senate too!!! Naked politics on both sides.
 
I am not one bit surprised that Pubs are going to do their best to get a nominee in before January.
I am also not one bit surprised that Dems are going to raise holy hell to make sure it doesn't happen.
I guess I'm just surprised that in a year and times that have been so "political", there are people who believe this isn't just politics as usual.
 
Last edited:
Bork's role as a partisan hatchet man in covering up Nixon's watergate crimes should have permanently disqualified him from the SC.
 
how can one survey the current political landscape and think history -- specifically historical notions of Democrats and Republicans from the 20th century -- has any real merit in understanding how this will play out?
 
History suggests Republicans (conservatives) will lie and cheat their way to a diminishingly democratic grasping for power. The good of the nation, which they are either too dumb to understand or too wicked to want, be damned.
 
We need a system in which one life or death or one retirement doesn’t change the entire balance of government.

In the first year after presidential election or midterm, the president must nominate and the senate must confirm one justice to an 18 year term. Each president will get two per term. Each senator will weigh in on three per term. This is the only way justices are named to the Court. If a justice dies or retires, nothing happens. All current justices would start an 18 year term when this is passed.
 
Back
Top