Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

Why DC Statehood Can’t or Won’t Happen

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

It was not even until 1916 that SCOTUS nomination debates were down outside of smoky back rooms and made public, similar to Garland.  It was discussed amongthe party in control, the votest were not there.  You have over 200 years of precedent.

Yeah and only male property owners had the right to vote.  Do you have a more recent and relevant precedent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, sactowndog said:

Yeah and only male property owners had the right to vote.  Do you have a more recent and relevant precedent?

1938. 

Why hold a hearing when the votes are not there?  What would the hearing of accomplished?  We know what the senators were on record has having wanted and where their votes were.

Only two times has a Justice been confirmed in an election year when when the Government was split between the executive and Senate.  19 Justices have been confirmed in an election/lame duck when the government is not split.  Would a hearing have made you feel better, when it would have no bearing on the outcome?  

Roughly half of all Presidents in history have had a seat to fill in an election/lame duck year.  Every single one nominated a Justice.

History, norms, are all on the side of the GOP with denying Garland and confirming the Trump nomination.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

1938. 

Why hold a hearing when the votes are not there?  What would the hearing of accomplished?  We know what the senators were on record has having wanted and where their votes were.

Only two times has a Justice been confirmed in an election year when when the Government was split between the executive and Senate.  19 Justices have been confirmed in an election/lame duck when the government is not split.  Would a hearing have made you feel better, when it would have no bearing on the outcome?  

Roughly half of all Presidents in history have had a seat to fill in an election/lame duck year.  Every single one nominated a Justice.

History, norms, are all on the side of the GOP with denying Garland and confirming the Trump nomination.  

 

 

Norm is not the right word here. There was no norm for what happened in 2016, especially under the guise for which it was justified. And no precedent for that same party completely reversing itself on that justification four years later. The GOP had the power to do it, are confident they won't be punished at the ballot box, and so they will do it. It is realpolitik. Nothing more or less.

And in that spirit, the Democrats are more than within their right to add states and to add judges, both of which have been done before. And killing the filibuster shouldn't be an issue either, because we lived without for the first 70 years of the Constitution.

Incidentally, I will continue to find none of this a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

1938. 

Why hold a hearing when the votes are not there?  What would the hearing of accomplished?  We know what the senators were on record has having wanted and where their votes were.

Only two times has a Justice been confirmed in an election year when when the Government was split between the executive and Senate.  19 Justices have been confirmed in an election/lame duck when the government is not split.  Would a hearing have made you feel better, when it would have no bearing on the outcome?  

Roughly half of all Presidents in history have had a seat to fill in an election/lame duck year.  Every single one nominated a Justice.

History, norms, are all on the side of the GOP with denying Garland and confirming the Trump nomination.  

 

 

Why are history and norms given precedent over a norm the GOP recently tried to establish? When the GOP says they are establishing a new "rule" where SCOTUS nominees are only voted on before an election year, that is an attempt to establish a new norm. They broke that rule. They're within their rights but will be punished for the hypocrisy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

There was no norm for what happened in 2016, especially under the guise for which it was justified. And no precedent for that same party completely reversing itself on that justification four years later. The GOP has the power to do it, are confident they won't be punished at the ballot box, and so they will do it. It is realpolitik. Nothing more or less.

 

 

You can point out the hypocrisy.  That is fair and is not missed by anybody (most anybody).

You could say not holding a hearing broke 20th century precedent but not confirming would have been in line with it.  Would the hearing have made you feel better?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Danimaji said:

Why are history and norms given precedent over a norm the GOP recently tried to establish? When the GOP says they are establishing a new "rule" where SCOTUS nominees are only voted on before an election year, that is an attempt to establish a new norm. They broke that rule. They're within their rights but will be punished for the hypocrisy

 

They went with that line because they were afraid being honest would have hurt them at the polls.  A norm can not be established by a single act.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

 

You can point out the hypocrisy.  That is fair and is not missed by anybody (most anybody).

You could say not holding a hearing broke 20th century precedent but not confirming would have been in line with it.  Would the hearing have made you feel better?

 

No. But at least it would have been consistent with "norms". ... I amended the previous post to clarify a bit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Danimaji said:

Why are history and norms given precedent over a norm the GOP recently tried to establish? When the GOP says they are establishing a new "rule" where SCOTUS nominees are only voted on before an election year, that is an attempt to establish a new norm. They broke that rule. They're within their rights but will be punished for the hypocrisy

They will if the Democrats don't do something stupid. But the Dems are definitely going to do something stupid if given the chance. My greatest hope is that they push the nomination through with no hearing, which is being talked about now.

That would be an incredible gift to Dems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mugtang said:

They’re a US territory and American citizens.  That’s what they offer. 

They can’t vote for president so they’re not full us citizens. This is just another desperate ploy by the Dem Party to add more Dems to their voting base. It has nothing to do with what’s best for them or our country. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

They will if the Democrats don't do something stupid. But the Dems are definitely going to do something stupid if given the chance. My greatest hope is that they push the nomination through with no hearing, which is being talked about now.

That would be an incredible gift to Dems.

Dream on. There’s like 38 days to do it, and that’s plenty of time to do it right. 

kat.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

They will if the Democrats don't do something stupid. But the Dems are definitely going to do something stupid if given the chance. My greatest hope is that they push the nomination through with no hearing, which is being talked about now.

That would be an incredible gift to Dems.

Yea after thinking about it, seems to me the best outcome for the Dems may be for this to be rammed through in the next couple weeks. If that carrot is left there to dangle it could really help drive out the GOP base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nevada Convert said:

They can’t vote for president so they’re not full us citizens. This is just another desperate ploy by the Dem Party to add more Dems to their voting base. It has nothing to do with what’s best for them or our country. 

There's a long history of allowing territories to become states. Why shouldn't they have representation? The only reason you can come up with is that you're scared they will vote for Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

They will if the Democrats don't do something stupid. But the Dems are definitely going to do something stupid if given the chance. My greatest hope is that they push the nomination through with no hearing, which is being talked about now.

That would be an incredible gift to Dems.

The last time that happened FDR nominated and the Senate confirmed a member of the KKK.

The GOP would be punished severally at the polls.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

They can’t vote for president so they’re not full us citizens. This is just another desperate ploy by the Dem Party to add more Dems to their voting base. It has nothing to do with what’s best for them or our country. 

Uh yes Puerto Rican’s are US citizens.  They carry US passports.  They’re just as American as you.  They can freely move to any US state without restrictions and can vote if they choose. Sure sounds like they’re just as American as you.  

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Yea after thinking about it, seems to me the best outcome for the Dems may be for this to be rammed through in the next couple weeks. If that carrot is left there to dangle it could really help drive out the GOP base.

That's the only wise play. They can't look like they are laying down for Republicans, of course. But they can't win this battle either. Scream from the rooftops that this is hypocrisy. But at the end of the day, get it off the table to give yourself a chance to win in November. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mugtang said:

Uh yes Puerto Rican’s are US citizens.  They carry US passports.  They’re just as American as you.  They can freely move to any US state without restrictions and can vote if they choose. Sure sounds like they’re just as American as you.  

All they have to do is move to Florida and pay a few power bills and they can vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, halfmanhalfbronco said:

The last time that happened FDR nominated and the Senate confirmed a member of the KKK.

The GOP would be punished severally at the polls.

 

You know, that wasn't a vote killer back then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, halfmanhalfbronco said:

All they have to do is move to Florida and pay a few power bills and they can vote.

But then they'd live in Florida and probably get eaten by a giant python or a real-life zombie hopped up on bath salts. Seems pretty risky. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...