Majority of Americans, including many Republicans, say wait for election to replace Ginsburg - Reuters poll

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Only if you don't like the nominee.

 

So not having done something recently is a good reason not to? If that's the best you can do it seems pretty weak. 

 

No real reason they shouldn't move ahead with it except that the left doesn't like her, and as far as I'm concerned that seems like a good reason to move ahead. 

So not having done something ever in the history of the United States in spite of having many opportunities leads one to conclude that it has been considered a bad idea for over two hundred years. 

 

Also, the Republicans in 2016 thought it was a bad idea.

[pegman]

Dems need to move on. RBG not retiring at 80 was an own goal. If anyone deserves condemnation it's her selfishness. Accept your side screwed up. You just look weak now. Dems running Clinton was another self goal on this issue too. 

[Thomas J]

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/icymi-history-side-republicans-filling-supreme-court-vacancy-2020

The role of the President is to nominate, the role of the Senate is to confirm or deny.  The difference between now and 2016 is that 1. Obama was a lame duck president unable to nominate after the election 2. The government was divided with Democrat Obama in the White House and Republican controlling the Senate.  Had the situation been identical with Obama in the White House and the Democrats controlled the Senate we would have a Justice Merrick Garland on the bench.  Even Ginsburg herself said that the president does not cease to be the president during an election year. 

In terms of the Poll  The Poll had Dewey beating Truman, had of course Clinton beating Trump.  Polls are just another form of fabrication that can be manipulated to get the outcome you want.  You can poll only those you know are predisposed to your position or phrase the question in such a way to get the expected outcome.  The left continually issues the decree that the majority of Americans favor gun control.  Of course, even the NRA favors gun control.  But if you phrased the question do you support an outright total ban on firearms the public overwhelmingly would reject that. 




 

[Yellowtail]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

So not having done something ever in the history of the United States in spite of having many opportunities leads one to conclude that it has been considered a bad idea for over two hundred years. 

 

Also, the Republicans in 2016 thought it was a bad idea.

 

You mean like putting a mon on the moon, the government takeover of the health care industry or same-sex marriage?

 

The only reason the Republicans were against it was because they did not want another leftist on the court. Just like now, the only reason the left is against it is they don't want another conservative on the court. Is this really not clear to you?

 

I think we all have Harry Ried to thank...

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

So not having done something ever in the history of the United States in spite of having many opportunities leads one to conclude that it has been considered a bad idea for over two hundred years. 

 

Also, the Republicans in 2016 thought it was a bad idea.

Not only that, the election has started, people have voted already.

 

So even more of a bad idea.

[mogandave]

45 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Not only that, the election has started, people have voted already.

 

So even more of a bad idea.

You mean they voted before the debate? Do you think any of them have changed their minds?

I think anyone that changes their mind should be able to get their ballot back and correct it. 
 

What say you?

[Gandtee]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

You mean they voted before the debate? Do you think any of them have changed their minds?

I think anyone that changes their mind should be able to get their ballot back and correct it. 
 

What say you?

After today's debate debacle I would think many Americans will be too embarrassed to vote.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You mean like putting a mon on the moon, the government takeover of the health care industry or same-sex marriage?

 

The only reason the Republicans were against it was because they did not want another leftist on the court. Just like now, the only reason the left is against it is they don't want another conservative on the court. Is this really not clear to you?

 

I think we all have Harry Ried to thank...

Space missions, health care and same-sex marriage are examples of advances in technology and evolution of social norms, they have nothing to do with confirming Supreme Court Justices.

 

Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election, after many people have already voted, sets a terrible precedent and further politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics.

[Yellowtail]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

Space missions, health care and same-sex marriage are examples of advances in technology and evolution of social norms, they have nothing to do with confirming Supreme Court Justices.

 

Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election, after many people have already voted, sets a terrible precedent and further politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics.

 

So when it's something you (apparently) like, "...not having done something ever in the history of the United States in spite of having many opportunities leads one to conclude that it has been considered a bad idea for over two hundred years." is okay, but when it's something you don't like it's not.

 

What does people having already voting have to do with it? 

 

In any event, do you think anyone that voted for Trump would change their vote and vote for Biden had they know Trump was going to nominate another Supreme Court Justice? 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

So when it's something you (apparently) like, "...not having done something ever in the history of the United States in spite of having many opportunities leads one to conclude that it has been considered a bad idea for over two hundred years." is okay, but when it's something you don't like it's not.

 

What does people having already voting have to do with it? 

 

In any event, do you think anyone that voted for Trump would change their vote and vote for Biden had they know Trump was going to nominate another Supreme Court Justice? 

Your first paragraph objection is addressed in my post that you replied to, as is the answer to your question in the second paragraph.  The Founding Fathers wanted to keep politics out of the judiciary.  They also didn't want the US politics to degenerate into a two party system.  They would be appalled at what is going on now.

 

Your third paragraph is irrelevant.  This isn't about gaming the election, it's about taking politics out of a process that is supposed to result in an unbiased, non-political Supreme Court.

[Andy from Kent]

On 9/30/2020 at 1:08 AM, heybruce said:

The closest to a Presidential election a Supreme Court Justice has ever been confirmed is George Siras Jr. on July 26, 1892.  Since then no Justice has been confirmed less than nine months before a Presidential election.

 

Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election is unprecedented, and a really bad idea. 

 

And I'd say by logical extension, POTUS #45 is     "unprecedented, and a really bad idea".

 

[Yellowtail]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Your first paragraph objection is addressed in my post that you replied to, as is the answer to your question in the second paragraph.  The Founding Fathers wanted to keep politics out of the judiciary.  They also didn't want the US politics to degenerate into a two party system.  They would be appalled at what is going on now.

 

Your third paragraph is irrelevant.  This isn't about gaming the election, it's about taking politics out of a process that is supposed to result in an unbiased, non-political Supreme Court.

 

You brought people having already voting  up as a reason to delay the appointment, not me, now you claim it's irrelevant as if it was my argument. Make up your mind. 

 

My first paragraph was not an objection,  but rather it was questioning your objection. You claimed that "Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election is unprecedented, and a really bad idea." yet you give no reason for it other than it it hasn't been done before. 

 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You brought people having already voting  up as a reason to delay the appointment, not me, now you claim it's irrelevant as if it was my argument. Make up your mind. 

 

My first paragraph was not an objection,  but rather it was questioning your objection. You claimed that "Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election is unprecedented, and a really bad idea." yet you give no reason for it other than it it hasn't been done before.

Really?  You don't understand?  Will it help if I underline the part you seem incapable (or unwilling) to grasp?

 

I posted:

 

"Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election, after many people have already voted, sets a terrible precedent and further politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Really?  You don't understand?  Will it help if I underline the part you seem incapable (or unwilling) to grasp?

 

I posted:

 

"Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election, after many people have already voted, sets a terrible precedent and further politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics.

 

 

 

You didn't answer the question the first time, so providing the same response but with a portion of it underlined does not answer it now.

 

You claimed that: "Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election is unprecedented, and a really bad idea." yet you give no reason why its a bad idea other than that it hasn't been done before.

 

You respond to that by claiming: "Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election, after many people have already voted, sets a terrible precedent and further politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics." yet:

 

1. You stated that people having voted is irreverent.

2. You say that it sets a terrible precedent, yet you have no reason why the precedent it sets is terrible.

3. You claim it politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics yet you don't say how. 

 

I agree the court is too political, but the reasons for waiting until after the election are political, and the reasons for confirming before the election are political. 

 

Again there is no good reason to wait unless you want Biden to make the nomination, (which I assume you do) and there is no reason to not wait unless you're happy with Trump's nomination, which I assume you are not. 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You didn't answer the question the first time, so providing the same response but with a portion of it underlined does not answer it now.

 

You claimed that: "Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election is unprecedented, and a really bad idea." yet you give no reason why its a bad idea other than that it hasn't been done before.

 

You respond to that by claiming: "Confirming a Supreme Court Justice weeks before a Presidential election, after many people have already voted, sets a terrible precedent and further politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics." yet:

 

1. You stated that people having voted is irreverent.

2. You say that it sets a terrible precedent, yet you have no reason why the precedent it sets is terrible.

3. You claim it politicizes a position that is supposed to be above politics yet you don't say how. 

 

I agree the court is too political, but the reasons for waiting until after the election are political, and the reasons for confirming before the election are political. 

 

Again there is no good reason to wait unless you want Biden to make the nomination, (which I assume you do) and there is no reason to not wait unless you're happy with Trump's nomination, which I assume you are not. 

 

If you can't see how McConnell's actions in 2016 and now don't further politicize this process there is no point in attempting to explain it.

[Yellowtail]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

If you can't see how McConnell's actions in 2016 and now don't further politicize this process there is no point in attempting to explain it.

 

Right, it's my fault you can't explain it. 

 

Looks to me like it's more the press and the left (I know, redundant) politicizing it. 

[Credo]

Since the nominee has been in close contact with Trump and his team, she may have to be in quarantine.