7 ms·

I'm curious: does anybody seriously think that if the positions were reversed that the Democrats would honor this? Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs a

by blhack 6y ago

I'm curious: does anybody seriously think that if the positions were reversed that the Democrats would honor this? Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump? None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn't grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage. Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you're going to have.

knightofmars 6y ago
Possibly. There is a level of accountability that seems to happen with the Democratic party. Not to say absolutely but it has happened. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusations-resignation-democrats-leann-tweeden-kirsten-gillibrand https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusation...
- AuryGlenz 6y ago
  Throwing one of your own under the bus for political reasons isn’t what I’d call accountability.
  - tacheiordache 6y ago
    Maybe not as what we hope accountability really means but it is slightly better than protecting your own knowing they did wrong.
  - knightofmars 6y ago
    And here's the example comment that highlights the varying moral compass that seems to exist in defining what one perceives as "thrown under the bus" vs "holding accountable". What are your political leanings, if you don't mind me asking?
    - AuryGlenz 6y ago
      My leanings are complicated. I’d boil it down to a mix of pragmatism and pro-rights. I’m pro choice, pro 2nd amendment, pro gay marriage, mostly for a small government, etc. I usually lean republican nowdays due to the democratic side of the aisle being more likely to actually take rights away. I don’t think what we know he did deserved the punishment, especially the picture where he was pretend groping. Nobody would have batted an eye at it at the time.
rayiner 6y ago
Why would anyone believe Democrats would behave differently after they spent all of last year again threatening to pack the Supreme Court?
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  Has any elected democrat threatened to pack the supreme court, except as a response to McConnell reversing his position now that his party is in control? You can't compare the senate majority leader with a random anonymous twitter account.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Two top candidates in the 2019 primaries, both senators, one of whom is running for VP: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434533-warren-harris-gillibrand-back-efforts-to-add-justices-to-supreme https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434533-warren-ha...
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      From their statements, it's hard for me to see a "threat". This is a threat: https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274 https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274. "We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court, We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that." is...not. Even still, your argument doesn't follow. Reacting to someone doing a thing you disapprove of isn't the same as instigating the thing. Your argument is that since Democrats disapprove of what Republicans did, and are considering taking action to undo and action they disapprove of, that they would have also done the act. That is very strange reasoning.
      - rayiner 6y ago
        Nobody should be talking about court packing. Sitting on nominations to gain tactical advantage might be a sneaky. But it’s something that’s been done forever. Expanding the Supreme Court for political purposes would be unprecedented and breaking a huge taboo. It is not at all a proportional response.
int_19h 6y ago
The reason why this is not transferable to the Democrats, is because they haven't previously refused to hold confirmation hearings for an appointee solely on the basis that there'd be an election later that year. If you're asking whether Democrats would have placed themselves in a similar position in 2016 if the roles were reversed, then the answer is no. I'd expect them to consider the nominee, and quite likely vote against - but they wouldn't stonewall until election.
- publicola1990 6y ago
  But Democrats did try to nominate Garland in 2016, so now can they protest if Republicans put up a nominee now? Republican position may be inconsistent between 2020 and 2016, but if Reps now take position taken by Dems in 2016, how can Dems be critical if it?.
  - namarie 6y ago
    They can be critical of it precisely because of the republicans' hipocrisy.

by blhack 6y ago

knightofmars 6y ago

Possibly. There is a level of accountability that seems to happen with the Democratic party. Not to say absolutely but it has happened. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusations-resignation-democrats-leann-tweeden-kirsten-gillibrand https://www.vox.com/2018/5/21/17352230/al-franken-accusation...

AuryGlenz 6y ago
Throwing one of your own under the bus for political reasons isn’t what I’d call accountability.
- tacheiordache 6y ago
  Maybe not as what we hope accountability really means but it is slightly better than protecting your own knowing they did wrong.
- knightofmars 6y ago
  And here's the example comment that highlights the varying moral compass that seems to exist in defining what one perceives as "thrown under the bus" vs "holding accountable". What are your political leanings, if you don't mind me asking?
  - AuryGlenz 6y ago
    My leanings are complicated. I’d boil it down to a mix of pragmatism and pro-rights. I’m pro choice, pro 2nd amendment, pro gay marriage, mostly for a small government, etc. I usually lean republican nowdays due to the democratic side of the aisle being more likely to actually take rights away. I don’t think what we know he did deserved the punishment, especially the picture where he was pretend groping. Nobody would have batted an eye at it at the time.

rayiner 6y ago

Why would anyone believe Democrats would behave differently after they spent all of last year again threatening to pack the Supreme Court?

joshuamorton 6y ago
Has any elected democrat threatened to pack the supreme court, except as a response to McConnell reversing his position now that his party is in control? You can't compare the senate majority leader with a random anonymous twitter account.
- rayiner 6y ago
  Two top candidates in the 2019 primaries, both senators, one of whom is running for VP: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434533-warren-harris-gillibrand-back-efforts-to-add-justices-to-supreme https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/434533-warren-ha...
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    From their statements, it's hard for me to see a "threat". This is a threat: https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274 https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274. "We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court, We have to take this challenge head on, and everything is on the table to do that." is...not. Even still, your argument doesn't follow. Reacting to someone doing a thing you disapprove of isn't the same as instigating the thing. Your argument is that since Democrats disapprove of what Republicans did, and are considering taking action to undo and action they disapprove of, that they would have also done the act. That is very strange reasoning.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Nobody should be talking about court packing. Sitting on nominations to gain tactical advantage might be a sneaky. But it’s something that’s been done forever. Expanding the Supreme Court for political purposes would be unprecedented and breaking a huge taboo. It is not at all a proportional response.

int_19h 6y ago

The reason why this is not transferable to the Democrats, is because they haven't previously refused to hold confirmation hearings for an appointee solely on the basis that there'd be an election later that year. If you're asking whether Democrats would have placed themselves in a similar position in 2016 if the roles were reversed, then the answer is no. I'd expect them to consider the nominee, and quite likely vote against - but they wouldn't stonewall until election.

publicola1990 6y ago
But Democrats did try to nominate Garland in 2016, so now can they protest if Republicans put up a nominee now? Republican position may be inconsistent between 2020 and 2016, but if Reps now take position taken by Dems in 2016, how can Dems be critical if it?.
- namarie 6y ago
  They can be critical of it precisely because of the republicans' hipocrisy.