Gonna go ahead and break up this post to reply to it.
The point of that link was to show you that there is precedent for it happening, not that one has happened more than the other. Just because one happened less doesn’t mean that it’s wrong to do.
Don’t play coy. You yourself brought this into play. Your response to the people’s choice in 2012 was the 2014 elections, which put in a lot of Republican politicians into the House and Senate, as to why we should wait for the next president to choose the Supreme Court nomination. But it’s not Congress’s job to elect someone, it’s the currently sitting president. The way I see it, he still has 9 months left in office. He was elected for four years, not 3 and some change. So he’s well within his Constitutional power to give a nominee.
Not it isn’t. That was never, EVER, the intention of electing Supreme Court justices. The Republicans are just using their majority share to strangle a working democracy to death. They themselves have admitted that all they want to do is stall the President’s will. They are being childish and intransigent at the cost of a functioning country.
What the Republicans are showing is a weakness in how the Constitution was drafted. Nothing more. If it plunges the government into utter chaos because they have a take-it-all-or-no-one-goes-home-happy attitude, fuck it. Even moderate Republicans have gone on record during that whole Tea Party rising fiasco to say that this is not the party that they had envisioned nor is it one they care to work for!
But go ahead and believe what you will.
You care about it enough to partake but not enough to educate yourself on the facts of the matter.
Got it. Go back to the SFV section. You’re a better poster there, anyway.
I still think you are misunderstanding my point about the 2014 election. I’m not saying it is the job of Congress to elected a SC nominee. However, because during the 2014 election so many Republicans were elected into Congress, this could be seen as a sweeping rejection of Obama’s policies and ideals. So I don’t think it is that unreasonable to say wait until 2016 when it can be decided once and for all. Though, like I said before, I think that may be a tactical mistake by Republicans and I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with the decision.
Also, at one time it may have been unsual for Congress to try and ascertain the political leanings of a nominee, but it is something that has become increasingly common over the years. Not saying it is right or wrong, but it was a reality long before this nomination.
I think you are going a bit overboard with the hyperbole about a “functioning country” and “plunging the government into utter chaos”. It isn’t ideal, but there are rules in place so that the Court can function without a full bench. It certainly isn’t enough to make the country fall into disarray.
I cant believe y’all brought up the founding fathers when like 90% of the people on heres ancestors were slaved tf up back then including mine. Fuck those mfs.
Pretty sure that the Supreme Court nominee requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. I am not aware of anything that says that the president MUST appoint the nominee and it must be accepted by the Senate, only that it has to be confirmed by the senate.
1300-1700, Christianity
1950-2016, Islam
1929-1945, Atheism
Time after jews left Egypt and around before and after the time of david, Jews
700-900, Islam
The reason it works so well now is the average American is too stupid to look beyond anything else. Hence they pour everything into a system that favors one or the other while berating anything else. American won’t wake up from this so long as they get their fix of social media BS/Starbucks/etc.
Was watching the Daily Show interview with the DNC chairwoman the other night and had to turn it off midway in because she was such a shill. When pressed about whether super delegates were contrary to democracy she just kept going on about how Republicans wish they had super delegates right now to deal with Trump.
As much as I think Trump would be an abomination of a President, there’s something really odious about this attitude toward Democracy that the party insiders know whats best and need to manipulate our process to their own ends in spite of the electorate.
For a country that prides itself on its democracy, America has such a weird fucking system.
You have a lunatic like Trump appearing simply because people feel so disconnected from their party, and a lady with a massive unfavourability rating is probably going win the Democratic nod because, hey, fuck you.
The problem is, that lunatic is saying things confidently and definitively, which is what his supporters like. It’s not about truth or reality; they want a man to yell words on a stage and sound angry like they are.
And the lady has basically married and bought her way into the upper echelon of the Democratic party. Sanders was an independent before now; the rest of the actual Democratic party has been intimidated and paid off to not run this election cycle as to unify everyone behind Hillary. Say what you want about her record and questionable morality, she’s definitely done her homework as to how the election system works and is going for every advantage she can get by any means necessary. The fact that an Independent socialist from Vermont is still giving her this much of a problem should be telling of how weak she is as a genuine candidate.
Sanders will beat Trump and Cruz if he wins the nomination. Hillary, I’m not so sure.