And if they don't wait to see what he does before they decide to do that, then yes they are craven traitors.
Supreme Court of the United States
- Thread starter onejayhawk
- Start date
- Status
And if they don't wait to see what he does before they decide to do that, then yes they are craven traitors.
Lexicus
Deity
Look at who Trump is appointing to run the government.
We already know, in broad outline, what he's going to do. Acting like there's uncertainty at this point is tantamount to trolling.
Of course, I'm not sure how the Democrats could obstruct what Trump does before he does it. Sure, if he turns into the second coming of Olof Palme I'll say don't obstruct him. But we both know that isn't happening.
Lexicus
Deity
I think 4 years of federal government being completely paralyzed is one of the better possible outcomes of this election.
Of course, you can blame your own party first and foremost since your politicians were the ones who started this (really, they began it under Clinton) and your voters rewarded them for it.
I may be a republican, but I didn't condone it then and DID NOT reward them by voting for trump. Or a couple other obstructionists also. I did vote for a few repubs that didn't play that game.
It take a better man to stop something that someone else started. But if you want be just as bad, and reward them for it by voting for them, feel free. It is your right, but don't complain about others that did the same thing.
It take a better man to stop something that someone else started. But if you want be just as bad, and reward them for it by voting for them, feel free. It is your right, but don't complain about others that did the same thing.
schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Why wait? Every name he's put forward so far is completely unacceptable. And he's already started horribly damaging our foreign policy, what with the receiving calls from
Lexicus
Deity
I'll complain because I kind of liked having a Constitutional system of limited government with checks and balances, but I see that being destroyed.
This is in effect a game-theoretical or 'war' situation. I want to win elections and stop the Republicans from destroying the country; telling myself I was the better man is not a substitute for that.
In any case, as I've indicated it's bad policy I want obstructed, not every policy pushed by a certain politician or party simply because it's them doing it. The latter is what the Republicans have done for years. I wish I was more surprised that you can't seem to tell the difference between the two.
Completely unacceptable to you.
Every previous nomination was totally unacceptable to somebody.
I wish they hadn't blocked Obama's nomination, it was his right to nominate, just like it will be Trumps.
The Dems whined when it wasn't put up to a vote. Now want to act the same way but pretend it's the moral high ground. Plain BS
If they want to be jerks just like the republicans were, fine, but don't pretend that now it's different.
It should have come up to a vote and hopefully it will in the future.
And as long as no one else dies, one vote isn't going to change the court much. It's the second one that will.
The Republicans were saying let the people decide who should pick our next Justice. More people chose Hillary, so I assume Trump is going to let her make the pick.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Rah, this sums up the difference between upcoming Democratic party obstruction and previous Republican party obstruction quite handily.
Lexicus
Deity
Is the mere fact that someone found it unacceptable enough for you? Or are the actual reasons for this not subject to critical examination?
But this isn't really true...they're not 'acting the same way.' As I've pointed out a number of times there is a big difference between rejecting stuff because of who's doing it and rejecting it because you substantively disagree with it.
Trump would make good on his promise of a smaller government by not making any judicial nominations.
The sore loser whining here is hilarious. The american people chose Trump based on the rules of the election. Deal with it I didn't vote for Trump but I'm not whining that Hillary should be president or that the Democrats should be in charge.
If the want to reject someone, do it with a vote like men and not just block the vote like you complain about the Republicans. And I was on record for saying the Republicans should have voted and personally voted for a repub that called for them to vote. (and not any that didn't) The dems will get another chance in two and four years. I sure hope they learned something or they'll likely repeat the same mistakes.
For all of you that say it's not the same, you're just deluding yourselves. There will always be winners and losers. And it will be done by the rules of the election, not some other way that lets you think you actually won.
If the want to reject someone, do it with a vote like men and not just block the vote like you complain about the Republicans. And I was on record for saying the Republicans should have voted and personally voted for a repub that called for them to vote. (and not any that didn't) The dems will get another chance in two and four years. I sure hope they learned something or they'll likely repeat the same mistakes.
For all of you that say it's not the same, you're just deluding yourselves. There will always be winners and losers. And it will be done by the rules of the election, not some other way that lets you think you actually won.
Lexicus
Deity
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
Definitely a sore loser. Sorry. He's got you on that. Trump beat her 30 states to 20 and 2623 counties to 489. It was a landslide.
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html
On the topic of the thread, another article on Supreme Court diversity:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/06/politics/trump-diversity-supreme-court/index.html
J
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
Definitely a sore loser. Sorry. He's got you on that. Trump beat her 2623 counties to 489. It was a landslide.
Yes, it's just that people, not counties, confer democratic legitimacy.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
It is not supposed to be a democracy. Never was. The system is a representative republic. It was designed so that the cities could not rule the country. Diversity matters.
J
Lexicus
Deity
It was designed so that slaveholding states could count their slaves as two-fifths of a voter when electing the President, actually. But anyway, thank you for conceding exactly what I said. The electoral college is not an instrument of democracy and in fact was intended to be anti-democratic.
By the way, a country can be a 'representative republic' and still be a democracy. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, since "democracy" is an amorphous concept that implies little if anything about specific mechanisms of government.
- Status
