Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dead at 79

[pondwater]

Again, why play with hypotheticals?  Replace "Obama" with "Reagan" and the answer is that the Democrats DID confirm the nominee.
At no point did I call for Republicans to be arrested or impeached, so you're arguing a point not made.

No, you're saying that they're doing something wrong? Wrong according to who? You? democrats? Liberals and lefties? (ie the enemy) Go figure, say it ain't so

It is perfectly legal for the Republicans to intentionally sabotage our government for their own political gain.  I never claimed otherwise.  Similarly, it is perfectly legal for them to, say, advocate for the repeal of the 13th Amendment and a return to slavery.

There you go being a drama queen again. No one is obstructing or sabotaging anything. Simply playing politics like ALL politicians do. Don't play so naive.

Just because something is not illegal, that doesn't make it a good idea.

Not a good idea like leaving leftovers in the fridge for over a week? Or not a good idea like having "Top Secret" government info on a private unsecured hacked server?

[CF DolFan]

It's just lack of class and character. Comes off very poorly.

I'm a registered Republican (first time I can actually say that) and I agree. I understand because all of the media immediately brought it up, as did everyone else, but it was poorly played by many Republicans. There was no way they were going to look good doing that to anyone except their base.

They didn't even know who the nominee is and they just said "no" off the bat. That's not using the power they have in the way it was intended.

No reason to patty-cake it. Obama isn't pandering to the Republicans. He has no intention of picking someone the Republicans want. Obviously I don't know that for sure but based on his history of never doing it before the likelihood isn't even slim.

[Fau Teixeira]

If they do stonewall nominations until the next Democrat is president, then they're running the risk that next one up  nominates Obama for the court.

[pondwater]

If they do stonewall nominations until the next Democrat is president, then they're running the risk that next one up  nominates Obama for the court.

Getting kind of cocky like Cam. And we see how it worked out for him, hahaha.

[Spider-Dan]

Okay, you don't want to play the hypothetical game and instead use an example from 30 years ago...got it.   

Yes, I'm willing to use a real-world example that exists; one that involves a Justice that is currently sitting on the Supreme Court.  And guess who voted to confirm that Justice to the Supreme Court in an election year?  That's right: Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader who is currently insisting that such an action is unthinkable.

So let's not pretend that confirmation of a SCOTUS Justice in an election year is some sort of crazy idea from ancient history, relegated to the age of telegrams and stagecoaches.  Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court now.

[Fau Teixeira]

Getting kind of cocky like Cam. And we see how it worked out for him, hahaha.

not cocky .. but i do appreciate really good irony when its in the offing

[Tenshot13]

Yes, I'm willing to use a real-world example that exists; one that involves a Justice that is currently sitting on the Supreme Court.  And guess who voted to confirm that Justice to the Supreme Court in an election year?  That's right: Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader who is currently insisting that such an action is unthinkable.

So let's not pretend that confirmation of a SCOTUS Justice in an election year is some sort of crazy idea from ancient history, relegated to the age of telegrams and stagecoaches.  Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court now.

I'm out.  If you want to just hold on to a 30 year example like nothing has changed in that period of time and keep repeating yourself, then I have nothing else to discuss with you.

[pondwater]

I'm out.  If you want to just hold on to a 30 year example like nothing has changed in that period of time and keep repeating yourself, then I have nothing else to discuss with you.

Hahaha, this is how Democrats and liberals operate. They twist, spin, gas-light, and use irrational arguments until you just say fuck it and give up. Most normal people don't have time to keep going round and round. They make it their mission in life to prove themselves right, they get off on it.

For example, they will use something from 30 years ago as the basis of an argument. I don't know about anyone else, but 30 years ago the only thing I was worried about was smoking pot, drinking alcohol, and getting some pussy. Needless to say, although I still like those things, they aren't primary concerns for me in life. In other words, things have drastically changed in the past 30 years. The world has drastically changed. I wouldn't worry about it too much Tenshot, these people will argue with anyone, about anything, until the day they die no matter how irrational they sound.

For example, see next post.

[pondwater]

So let's not pretend that confirmation of a SCOTUS Justice in an election year is some sort of crazy idea from ancient history, relegated to the age of telegrams and stagecoaches.  Anthony Kennedy is still on the Supreme Court now.

Says someone basing his argument on an example from a time before the internet, before most people had PCs, before cell phones. A time when TVs were the size of a washing machine and you could actually find a pay phone.

I guess if we were currently in the 1980s, then a person like you would be using an example from the 1950s. A time when TVs and washing machines were just getting popular and cars were the size of SUVs. Stop playing silly child games Spider.

Oh and by the way, although on the decline, telegrams were still used in the 80s and were common place. So yes, your argument is relegated to the age telegrams!

[Tenshot13]

Says someone basing his argument on an example from a time before the internet, before most people had PCs, before cell phones. A time when TVs were the size of a washing machine and you could actually find a pay phone.

I guess if we were currently in the 1980s, then a person like you would be using an example from the 1950s. A time when TVs and washing machines were just getting popular and cars were the size of SUVs. Stop playing silly child games Spider.

Oh and by the way, although on the decline, telegrams were still used in the 80s and were common place. So yes, your argument is relegated to the age telegrams!

The Cold War was still going on.  The USSR was still a country.  But he's right, it's an apples to apples comparison...

[Cathal]

The reason why he's using that example is because it was probably the last time this actual event has occurred. Some of the politicians that were around back then are probably also here today. So while it was 30 years ago, not too much might have changed since you have some of the same players. I mean, this particular scenario is also not something that happens constantly, so going back to something in fairly recent memory (politics wise) isn't an unfair example.

[Baba Booey]

No reason to patty-cake it. Obama isn't pandering to the Republicans. He has no intention of picking someone the Republicans want. Obviously I don't know that for sure but based on his history of never doing it before the likelihood isn't even slim.

New report out last night is Obama might nominate the Nevada Governor who is an Hispanic Republican. So he will give the Republicans a Republican person. Only thing with this guy is he is Pro-Life and a moderate Republican. Sort of throwing an olive branch out that, hey I will give you a Republican but he is a moderate one who has some views that agree with me. So if the Republicans vote down one of their own fellow Republicans, then that's on them.

[Tenshot13]

The reason why he's using that example is because it was probably the last time this actual event has occurred. Some of the politicians that were around back then are probably also here today. So while it was 30 years ago, not too much might have changed since you have some of the same players. I mean, this particular scenario is also not something that happens constantly, so going back to something in fairly recent memory (politics wise) isn't an unfair example.

I get that.  I just don't think it's a viable example because politics change a lot in 30 years, contrary to what he might believe.

[Spider-Dan]

When your primary objection is that a Justice that is currently sitting on the Supreme Court is too far back in history to count, sorry, you get no sympathy from me.

As for the argument that politics have changed: of course they have! The Republicans are the ones changing them!  The United States of America coming two days away from defaulting on its debt obligations (and complete financial catastrophe) was also not something that happened 30 years ago, but here we are.  The record amount of filibusters by the 2009-2015 GOP Senate minority is called a "record" because it had never happened before.

[pondwater]

The reason why he's using that example is because it was probably the last time this actual event has occurred. Some of the politicians that were around back then are probably also here today. So while it was 30 years ago, not too much might have changed since you have some of the same players. I mean, this particular scenario is also not something that happens constantly, so going back to something in fairly recent memory (politics wise) isn't an unfair example.

Example of what exactly? What happened 30 years ago doesn't dictate what would happen today, nor should it. I have no doubt that the Democrats of "today" would pull this same shit and spin it. Just like they do with gun control and many other things.

At the end of the day, none of this discussion really matters. The Republicans gained seats in the Senate and are under no obligation to confirm. Just like Obama can veto a bill without cause, so can the Senate vote against confirmation of any/all of Obama's nominations. That's called checks and balances, that's the whole point of how it's set up. Don't like it, vote them out or go to Cuba.