Expand Court

[Kutnupe14]

He also knows full well right that he would be screaming bloody murder along with his chosen party if the Republicans tried to do anything like this on such a grand scale.

Absolutely. What isn’t being understood, is that dirty tricks from party, is going to lead to dirty tricks from the other. And it’s not to “break even.” They’re going to up the ante. Merrick Garland is exactly why this is happening. I, and you can disagree, don’t believe the Democrats would be taking so drastic an action if Garland had have been dealt with fairly.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You can like post for people you have on ignore? Hmmm.... odd, how would they even know? Oh, wait....

 

[JTScribe]

Gotta have context from time to time when you're on your game!

 

[KLB]

Absolutely. What isn’t being understood, is that dirty tricks from party, is going to lead to dirty tricks from the other. And it’s not to “break even.” They’re going to up the ante. Merrick Garland is exactly why this is happening. I, and you can disagree, don’t believe the Democrats would be taking so drastic an action if Garland had have been dealt with fairly.

You mean, if Garland had been confirmed. Fairness is not part of the equation.

 

[KLB]

Guys, he's not debating. He's trying to push buttons. Put him on ignore.

I really do not understand why some of you have this issue. I have no problem discussing or just reading his posts without being tempted to go off the rails. I usually find posts like yours more trolling than the stuff he posts.

 

[JTScribe]

I really do not understand why some of you have this issue. I have no problem discussing or just reading his posts without being tempted to go off the rails. I usually find posts like yours more trolling than the stuff he posts.

Dang, and here I thought I was only joking around 47.8% of the time.

 

[KG1]

Absolutely. What isn’t being understood, is that dirty tricks from party, is going to lead to dirty tricks from the other. And it’s not to “break even.” They’re going to up the ante. Merrick Garland is exactly why this is happening. I, and you can disagree, don’t believe the Democrats would be taking so drastic an action if Garland had have been dealt with fairly.

You've already invalidated your argument when you stated that you disagree with the tactics.

The Democrats are never looking to "break even" on any issue. They're constantly proposing drastic action for fundamental change no matter what the GOP does. It doesn't end.

 

[KLB]

You've already invalidated your argument when you stated that you disagree with the tactics.

The Democrats are never looking to "break even" on any issue. They're constantly proposing drastic action for fundamental change no matter what the GOP does. It doesn't end.

I don't think this was always true, but it seems to have become true in the last 8 years or so.

 

[chipbennett]

Absolutely. What isn’t being understood, is that dirty tricks from party, is going to lead to dirty tricks from the other. And it’s not to “break even.” They’re going to up the ante. Merrick Garland is exactly why this is happening. I, and you can disagree, don’t believe the Democrats would be taking so drastic an action if Garland had have been dealt with fairly.

If you honestly believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

 

[KG1]

I suppose that the GOP could've dealt with Garland's nomination by trashing the hell out of him in open confirmation hearings "fairly" like the Democrats do to GOP nominees..

 

[chipbennett]

I suppose that the GOP could've dealt with Garland's nomination and trashed the hell out of him in open confirmation hearings "fairly" like the Democrats do to GOP nominees..

Yep. Robert Bork. Clarence Thomas. Gorsuch. Cavanaugh. Barrett.

But, please, Kut: preach some more about fairness, and maybe some about civility.

 

[BugI02]

“Wrong?” I guess that depends. If you think the treatment of Garland was wrong, then you could think that adding Justices would be wrong too; and vice versa. Point being, if someone is going to be petty, they shouldn’t be complaining when the other side does it too.

So, you're saying Trump could have spied on congress and used the IRS to target his enemies and you wouldn't have been hollering up a lung? Please

I seem to recall TUS having a **** fit regarding whataboutism not justifying anything. Weren't you batting for that team at the time?

 

[Ingomike]

The Democrat Senators are part of that body, yes? So where were their voices heard, or any of the other Senators? The Senate GOP leadership held the nomination. Yes, it is within the scope of the Senate rules to do so. I've never said otherwise. This is where that "be careful what you wish for" resonates, because the Democrats are prepared to do the same thing within the scope of those "rules."

The senators are the voice of the people, the people having spoken in an unquestioned election gave their voice to the GOP.

The democrats are not within the scope of the rules if they change the rules...

 

[Slapstick]

Absolutely. What isn’t being understood, is that dirty tricks from party, is going to lead to dirty tricks from the other. And it’s not to “break even.” They’re going to up the ante. Merrick Garland is exactly why this is happening. I, and you can disagree, don’t believe the Democrats would be taking so drastic an action if Garland had have been dealt with fairly.

Under your line of reasoning I'm going to postulate that Merrick Garland was a direct response to Harry Reid pulling the nuclear option in 2013 by ending the filibuster for Judicial nominees to the Federal Court. So...the Democrats actually started this whole mess.

 

[printcraft]

Absolutely. What isn’t being understood, is that dirty tricks from party, is going to lead to dirty tricks from the other. And it’s not to “break even.” They’re going to up the ante. Merrick Garland is exactly why this is happening. I, and you can disagree, don’t believe the Democrats would be taking so drastic an action if Garland had have been dealt with fairly.

 

[Tombs]

“Wrong?” I guess that depends. If you think the treatment of Garland was wrong, then you could think that adding Justices would be wrong too; and vice versa. Point being, if someone is going to be petty, they shouldn’t be complaining when the other side does it too.

They didn't fight hard enough to get Garland.
Garland also was not labeled a sexual predator, berated for his faith, or considered the "darkest day in 240 years."
Making comparisons is really, really tone deaf.

After 4 years of throwing every dirty trick possible 24/7, acting like they have carte blanch to do what ever they want now because of not getting Garland is ridiculous. They tried to impeach Trump twice for some of the most petty nonsense ever.
Remember all the Russia hoaxes? How about "drinking bleach?" Or maybe the hoax about Trump peeing on the bed Obama stayed in? How about the treatment of Kavanaugh? Or Barrett? How about the constant attacks on mere voters for disagreeing with them?

They don't hold the ground to be pulling scorched earth tactics because they never even made an attempt to be the bigger man.

 

[KG1]

How can you compare the GOP's witholding of a Democrat nomination to the Democrat party trying to destroy every aspect of the lives of a GOP nominee on the basis of "fairness"?

As Tombs has said. The Democrats have no standing in the arena of “fairness" to justify radically upping the game in any way shape or form when they have a proven track record of not treating anyone from the opposing side fairly.

This Merrick Garland excuse is absurd.

 

[buckwacker]

How can you compare the GOP's witholding of a Democrat nomination to the Democrat party trying to destroy every aspect of the lives of a GOP nominee on the basis of "fairness"?

As Tombs has said. The Democrats have no standing in the arena of “fairness" to justify radically upping the game in any way shape or form when they have a proven track record of not treating anyone from the opposing side fairly.

This Merrick Garland excuse is absurd.

The dem party has become wholly Machiavellian. There are no ethics, morals, foundational principles. The only rule that remains is attain and maintain power at any expense.

 

[churchmouse]

They didn't fight hard enough to get Garland.
Garland also was not labeled a sexual predator, berated for his faith, or considered the "darkest day in 240 years."
Making comparisons is really, really tone deaf.

After 4 years of throwing every dirty trick possible 24/7, acting like they have carte blanch to do what ever they want now because of not getting Garland is ridiculous. They tried to impeach Trump twice for some of the most petty nonsense ever.
Remember all the Russia hoaxes? How about "drinking bleach?" Or maybe the hoax about Trump peeing on the bed Obama stayed in? How about the treatment of Kavanaugh? Or Barrett? How about the constant attacks on mere voters for disagreeing with them?

They don't hold the ground to be pulling scorched earth tactics because they never even made an attempt to be the bigger man.

Well said and yes he is trolling again.

 

[drillsgt]

Kut says it's okay, so i'm fine with it.