4 ms·

Yes, the Democrats would absolutely not be so nakedly malevolent. Is this not overwhelmingly apparent?

xienze 6y ago
What in the world are you talking about? The whole reason Democrats are going on and on about this election year appointment is because they wanted to fill Scalia's seat in 2016 and Republicans held all the chips and said "nah, we're gonna wait until after the election." Don't take my word for it, look at what Hillary Clinton said: > The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.[0] Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, but to claim the Democrats wouldn't do this if they had the position Republicans currently do is laughable. They threw a fit about this exact same scenario just four years ago, just with the arguments flipped! And they would quickly brush aside any criticism of hypocrisy by saying "hey we didn't say you had to leave a SC seat empty during an election year, you guys did!" and they'd still have some claim to being logically consistent in their beliefs. This is how politics work, yes even your beloved party isn't above it. BTW, if you want to see some real fun, wait until the Democrats have all three branches. They're gonna pack the SC. 0: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/698675522956607488?lang=en https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/698675522956607488...
- sagichmal 6y ago
  > Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, That's the only angle! Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. This level of naked malevolence is exclusively the domain of the Republicans. And so _of course_ the Democrats should pack the court -- they should double the size of the bench. It's the only reasonable response to things so far. And that's not malevolence, that's equinimity.
  - will4274 6y ago
    > they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now The same Democrats who filibustered other federal judges for years under Bush and then removed the filibuster under Obama to prevent Republicans from doing the same? On this topic (judges) in particular, the examples of partisan hypocrisy are obvious, for those familiar with the history.
  - xienze 6y ago
    > Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, Yes, as we’ve established, they wanted to push through a replacement as fast as possible. > and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. Doubtful. Unless you’re implying that the Democrats suddenly found religion and decided that what the Republicans did in 2016 was, in hindsight, something they’ve now come to discover was The Right Way To Do Things afterall. To the contrary, they _still_ whine about 2016. Hardly sounds like the party that truly believes in the sanctity of this “no SC appointments in an election year” thing. And you’ll notice that they’re currently harping on RBG’s “dying wish” that her seat remain vacant until a “new president is installed.” Not until after the election, but for four more years. This is what political parties do, they latch onto whatever will benefit them most. > they should double the size of the bench. And that’s not “naked malevolence”, to imply that the best way to undo the advantage obtained by sheer luck (timing of a vacancy) is to completely slam your fist on the metaphorical scale by making it impossible for the other guy to gain an advantage unless _he_ later packs the court by an even larger degree than you did?
    - sagichmal 6y ago
      The fallacy on display here is false equivalence. I agree that both parties bend facts and exploit logistical loopholes to serve their own interests. I agree that it's easy to find examples of hypocrisy in both parties. But Republicans do these things so much more frequently, and, especially now, so much more nakedly and freely, that it's actually a categorically different thing. It's totally disingenuous to say they both do it and therefore they're both the same.

What in the world are you talking about? The whole reason Democrats are going on and on about this election year appointment is because they wanted to fill Scalia's seat in 2016 and Republicans held all the chips and said "nah, we're gonna wait until after the election." Don't take my word for it, look at what Hillary Clinton said: > The Republicans in the Senate and on the campaign trail who are calling for Justice Scalia’s seat to remain vacant dishonor our Constitution.[0] Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, but to claim the Democrats wouldn't do this if they had the position Republicans currently do is laughable. They threw a fit about this exact same scenario just four years ago, just with the arguments flipped! And they would quickly brush aside any criticism of hypocrisy by saying "hey we didn't say you had to leave a SC seat empty during an election year, you guys did!" and they'd still have some claim to being logically consistent in their beliefs. This is how politics work, yes even your beloved party isn't above it. BTW, if you want to see some real fun, wait until the Democrats have all three branches. They're gonna pack the SC. 0: https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/698675522956607488?lang=en https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/698675522956607488...

sagichmal 6y ago
> Yes of course there's a "you're being hypocritical" angle to everything, That's the only angle! Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. This level of naked malevolence is exclusively the domain of the Republicans. And so _of course_ the Democrats should pack the court -- they should double the size of the bench. It's the only reasonable response to things so far. And that's not malevolence, that's equinimity.
- will4274 6y ago
  > they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now The same Democrats who filibustered other federal judges for years under Bush and then removed the filibuster under Obama to prevent Republicans from doing the same? On this topic (judges) in particular, the examples of partisan hypocrisy are obvious, for those familiar with the history.
- xienze 6y ago
  > Democrats absolutely would not have blocked Scalia's replacement for a year, Yes, as we’ve established, they wanted to push through a replacement as fast as possible. > and even if they had, they would absolutely not have ignored the precedent they set and did the opposite thing now. Doubtful. Unless you’re implying that the Democrats suddenly found religion and decided that what the Republicans did in 2016 was, in hindsight, something they’ve now come to discover was The Right Way To Do Things afterall. To the contrary, they _still_ whine about 2016. Hardly sounds like the party that truly believes in the sanctity of this “no SC appointments in an election year” thing. And you’ll notice that they’re currently harping on RBG’s “dying wish” that her seat remain vacant until a “new president is installed.” Not until after the election, but for four more years. This is what political parties do, they latch onto whatever will benefit them most. > they should double the size of the bench. And that’s not “naked malevolence”, to imply that the best way to undo the advantage obtained by sheer luck (timing of a vacancy) is to completely slam your fist on the metaphorical scale by making it impossible for the other guy to gain an advantage unless _he_ later packs the court by an even larger degree than you did?
  - sagichmal 6y ago
    The fallacy on display here is false equivalence. I agree that both parties bend facts and exploit logistical loopholes to serve their own interests. I agree that it's easy to find examples of hypocrisy in both parties. But Republicans do these things so much more frequently, and, especially now, so much more nakedly and freely, that it's actually a categorically different thing. It's totally disingenuous to say they both do it and therefore they're both the same.