RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges

RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 7:45:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons... Republicans' opposition to universal healthcare had/has nothing whatsoever to do with any good reason. As a group, I haven't seen them do anything 'for good reason' in ... ages. Well...when you live in your mom's basement drinking koolaide with your nerds friends and only look at, or discuss, your own Dungeon and Dragons stories, I'm not surprised YOU haven't seen someone do something.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 7:48:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ... Parroting that myth? Just like the media told you? These same 'constitutionalists' who ruled that "free speech" goes to the highest bidder?

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 7:56:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ... Parroting that myth? Just like the media told you? These same 'constitutionalists' who ruled that "free speech" goes to the highest bidder? Ah, see, you're projecting. You can't see beyond your D&D game. If you could, tell me the three things you have wrong in your one sentence above. You see, I see when conservatives are full of shit and will say so. You can't help but parrot your party line.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 8:18:18 PM)
'My party' being? ... But you're right about not seeing beyond the "D&D game," which inherent difficulty of such likely derives from my not knowing WTF a "D&D game" is in the first place. "tell me the three things you have wrong in your one sentence above" That's on you, bro. You're the expert, here.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 8:20:28 PM)
Drunkards and Dragons? Dudes and Dudettes? Dresden and Dusseldorf? Dink and Dunk? Dressage and Dramamine?

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 8:23:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation. Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon. Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them. I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges. Biden and Kennedy invented the term "Borked". Don't give me any repugs worse them Dems. Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists while Dems appoint people down for the cause who be live the constitution is a living breathing document...such as a wise Latina who will have a better judgement than a white male. While the strict origin of 'Borked' is unknown in fact, and hardly applies when he got a hearing and a vote both and even after the committee voted him down. The repubs by contrast...have done neither. And even in the cases where the committee has been voted out, still refuse a floor vote. So there is no comparison and simply another partisan reach to suggest as much. I spoke to many repubs at the time who were against Bork as damn near a fascist who had no quarter for the BOR. They knew going in that Bork was as partisan an ideologue as had ever been nominated. The repubs appt. no such 'constitutional judges as they appt. every bit as much partisan ideologues as the dems. do...if not more so. Sex and race are the same...partisan reach with the obvious implication that only white men have a true grasp on the constitution.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 8:27:24 PM)
~

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 8:58:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then you're part of the problem, aren't you? You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench. IOW, yes. Best of luck to you, MrRodgers. Fighting fire with fire is going to get more fire and stronger fire. It's like fighting racism with more racism. It doesn't balance out. It just makes it worse and more divisive. Well maybe but given the last 30-40 years since Reagan, I am not hopeful at all. The mere fact that the repubs are not even meeting with or giving a committee hearing to Garland, is enough to put me over the edge. Add to that, that the repubs have vetted many of Obama's judge nominees and simply will not have a floor vote to deny their seating, does more than put me over the edge...but over the top. Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism. And...the nuclear option when when Reid ran the senate didn't put you over the edge? Truth be discussed, the democrats have never won a policy decision by vote, it's all been by judges on the team. The bad part is that the republicans, with their feathered nests, didn't care until recently when grass root conservatives started pounding it home. So the Dems just got away with it for decades. Now, as Obama's spiritual advisor says, the chickens are coming home to roost. Haven't the slightest idea what country you've been watching. The dems only resistance to policy is the protection of the minority that our founders assumed would have better virtues put to use than by the modern, cheap partisanship of the repubs of the last 40-60 years. The repbs for that time have been nothing but fascist leaning, theocratic, rent-seekers for the religious right and corporate America.

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 9:01:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons... Republicans' opposition to universal healthcare had/has nothing whatsoever to do with any good reason. As a group, I haven't seen them do anything 'for good reason' in ... ages. Well...when you live in your mom's basement drinking koolaide with your nerds friends and only look at, or discuss, your own Dungeon and Dragons stories, I'm not surprised YOU haven't seen someone do something. Oh...now I am convinced. Very cogent argument.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/13/2016 11:11:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ... Parroting that myth? Just like the media told you? These same 'constitutionalists' who ruled that "free speech" goes to the highest bidder? Ah, see, you're projecting. "Well...when you live in your mom's basement" From an expert on projecting. My mom's been ten years gone, glad yours is still supporting you and all your efforts. I have financially and in-house supported 5 different family members at various times due in no small part to suck-ass Republican policies, especially regarding higher education and healthcare. Some of it had nothing to do with that, just normal hiccups of life. But a lot of that would never have been an 'issue' if living in a northern european country. I'm not complaining about any of that at all, glad to do it. But not everyone has that source.

MrRodgers -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 12:06:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists ... Parroting that myth? Just like the media told you? These same 'constitutionalists' who ruled that "free speech" goes to the highest bidder? Ah, see, you're projecting. "Well...when you live in your mom's basement" From an expert on projecting. My mom's been ten years gone, glad yours is still supporting you and all your efforts. I have financially and in-house supported 5 different family members at various times due in no small part to suck-ass Republican policies, especially regarding higher education and healthcare. Some of it had nothing to do with that, just normal hiccups of life. But a lot of that would never have been an 'issue' if living in a northern european country. I'm not complaining about any of that at all, glad to do it. But not everyone has that source. No, here is the US you are born to produce a profit for yourself or somebody else or you can just go to jail...or die. Oh that is unless you can manage to get sick first and provide the medical industrial complex with some windfall profits, subsidized by taxing the young and healthy but not the rich. Oh and it would be best if you could get cancer. That's a huge, on going and continuing profit center.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 12:51:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Plus once you bring up their re-election prospects, the repubs do this as merely as petty, little, power barons, concerned then not with country but only their narrow short term self-interest. I have not claimed otherwise. It's one reason I'm not a Republican.

DesideriScuri -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 12:54:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons... Republicans' opposition to universal healthcare had/has nothing whatsoever to do with any good reason. As a group, I haven't seen them do anything 'for good reason' in ... ages. I highly doubt the GOP isn't voting on judge appointments because of the GOP's opposition to Obamacare. I'm sure only the Democrats do things for "good reason," right? [8\|]

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 1:14:28 AM)
Not been any fan of Democrats in some few years. But, if I expected anything like good 'political discourse' to begin with, it certainly wouldn't come from something like this; "I highly doubt the GOP isn't voting on judge appointments because of the GOP's opposition to Obamacare." Ignorance is actually not Nirvana.

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 7:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers This is not governing kinkroids. It's not rubberstamping. If the GOP is opposed to a candidate for good reasons, why should it matter if that candidate doesn't get confirmed? And, that goes especially for judicial appointees. Those appointees are going to help shape the way the law is interpreted, so a biased, or believed to be biased appointee shouldn't be confirmed. While all the above is true, regardless of which party runs the Senate or which party is making the appointment, I doubt Obama's appointees are all not worthy of confirmation. Politics is getting more and more partisan. The D's and R's are moving away from each other (it's not just one party or the other). I doubt it's going to get any better any time soon. Except the repubs are getting much more partisan then the dems were under Bush and historically and if what you say is the problem, then why no votes ? This is the second OP I've done with the other, where the senate had a voice vote on a proposed floor vote for 17 judges already vetted and voted "out' of committee, just to see the repubs table them. I'd love to see the the dems become at least as partisan and do what they can to hold all of any right or repub judges off the table from now on...not a single vote if they have the power at all. Yes, I fear right wing judges much more so than moderate and left judges. Biden and Kennedy invented the term "Borked". Don't give me any repugs worse them Dems. Besides, repugs "tend" to appoint constitutionalists while Dems appoint people down for the cause who be live the constitution is a living breathing document...such as a wise Latina who will have a better judgement than a white male. While the strict origin of 'Borked' is unknown in fact, and hardly applies when he got a hearing and a vote both and even after the committee voted him down. The repubs by contrast...have done neither. And even in the cases where the committee has been voted out, still refuse a floor vote. So there is no comparison and simply another partisan reach to suggest as much. I spoke to many repubs at the time who were against Bork as damn near a fascist who had no quarter for the BOR. They knew going in that Bork was as partisan an ideologue as had ever been nominated. The repubs appt. no such 'constitutional judges as they appt. every bit as much partisan ideologues as the dems. do...if not more so. Sex and race are the same...partisan reach with the obvious implication that only white men have a true grasp on the constitution. While I disagree with most of what you say, the true point is that until Biden and Kennnedy went after Bork appointing judges was a pretty non-partisan act of congress. Unless a person was totally incompetent a President was given his appointments. It was only after Biden and Kennedy made it partisan that this infighting began. I also point out you skipped over Reid's nuclear option...showing partisanship on your part.

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 7:53:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Then you're part of the problem, aren't you? You fight fire...with fire. Plus I don't want today's version of repub judges on the bench. IOW, yes. Best of luck to you, MrRodgers. Fighting fire with fire is going to get more fire and stronger fire. It's like fighting racism with more racism. It doesn't balance out. It just makes it worse and more divisive. Well maybe but given the last 30-40 years since Reagan, I am not hopeful at all. The mere fact that the repubs are not even meeting with or giving a committee hearing to Garland, is enough to put me over the edge. Add to that, that the repubs have vetted many of Obama's judge nominees and simply will not have a floor vote to deny their seating, does more than put me over the edge...but over the top. Actually the expression of fighting fire with fire began with the discovery that it...puts fires out. So your suggestion that one would just get more fire speaks to your very likely corresponding level of cynicism. And...the nuclear option when when Reid ran the senate didn't put you over the edge? Truth be discussed, the democrats have never won a policy decision by vote, it's all been by judges on the team. The bad part is that the republicans, with their feathered nests, didn't care until recently when grass root conservatives started pounding it home. So the Dems just got away with it for decades. Now, as Obama's spiritual advisor says, the chickens are coming home to roost. Haven't the slightest idea what country you've been watching. The dems only resistance to policy is the protection of the minority that our founders assumed would have better virtues put to use than by the modern, cheap partisanship of the repubs of the last 40-60 years. The repbs for that time have been nothing but fascist leaning, theocratic, rent-seekers for the religious right and corporate America. I think you missed my point. I didn't say Dems were resistant to policy. I said their policy never wins when put to the voters so they've learned to adapt and implement it through unelected judges. While I may agree with you on repubs for the last couple of decades, if you were anywhere near non-partisan you'd have to admit that the left uses the court to enable the government to be more authoritarian. In order to do that, the left has to have judges who are on the team they can go to. It's really how organizations like the ACLU thrives. The fact that repubs have woken up to that sort of thing is no actual cause to blame them for anything. They've just gotten into a game in which the Dems believes they should have the field to themselves.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 9:00:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji While I disagree with most of what you say, the true point is that until Biden and Kennnedy went after Bork appointing judges was a pretty non-partisan act of congress. The president appoints, congress approves, or not. quote: It was only after Biden and Kennedy made it partisan that this infighting began. Nomination of Bork was Reagan's highly partisan choice by itself, he displayed having no qualms about his potential rulings being ideologically based. That was a first. But now it's those challenging such blatant partisanship who invoked partisanship for the first time?

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 10:19:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I'm sure only the Democrats do things for "good reason," right? [8\|] Did I not mention that? So sorry. But of course! There was all that deregulation they helped pass. Oh wait ... OK, but then there was the ME invasion they rubber stamped. Hmmm ... well, not that one either, but (got to be something here ... ) Oh yes! Something that actually happened in my lifetime, so I didn't have to get all wiki about it. The national healthcare "plan." Smooth as a handmade waffle, that thing is! So yes, an instance where the Democrats made something like a just-discernably-more-than-feeble effort to fight the Republicans in the latter's (successful) effort to destroy it. There we go! That sort of bi-partisan effort in doing something good for the people just melts the heart, doesn't it?

Nnanji -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 10:29:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji While I disagree with most of what you say, the true point is that until Biden and Kennnedy went after Bork appointing judges was a pretty non-partisan act of congress. The president appoints, congress approves, or not. quote: It was only after Biden and Kennedy made it partisan that this infighting began. Nomination of Bork was Reagan's highly partisan choice by itself, he displayed having no qualms about his potential rulings being ideologically based. That was a first. But now it's those challenging such blatant partisanship who invoked partisanship for the first time? What a twisted view. I admit Reagan was a constitutionalist. But only a real twisted lefty would call that partisan.

Edwird -> RE: More damaging partisanship...federal judges (6/14/2016 11:37:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji I admit Reagan was a constitutionalist. He was? You mean, the same way he was against government spending, when he set records for doing just that? Anyone who thinks Bork was a 'constitutionalist' is just ... Oh well, can't proceed ant further there without violating forum TOS, but, my my.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875