brett05

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 10:29 AM) Great. We agree that the Democrats can sit on the Trump nominee as long as they want then. I don't think I ever said they couldn't. In fact I believe I said the more they sit, the troubles they'll be in come mid terms will be even greater.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 10:15 AM) Yep. And since Trump has already taken the unconventional step of filing his 2020 candidacy with the FEC already, isn't he already in "election season?" Republicans can try to spin it anyway that they want, but they stole a seat from Obama and set a very, very dangerous precedent going forward. You all can spin all you want...the speech by Joe works only when it fits your agenda.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 10:05 AM) Basically in June of 1992, Biden said that in the event that a SCOTUS spot opened up, any vote should be held after the election. The full context of his speech at the time was that the Clarence Thomas nomination, and the recent history of confirmation votes in the 80s, meant that by the time a justice resigned, and someone was put up for the spot, the odds of confirmation were remote at best. This was merely a speech, and no rule was ever enacted. The most important context here, of course, is that there was no opening on the Court when Biden made the speech! So whether Biden would have gone forward with preventing a justice (and whether the rest of Senate Judiciary would have followed suit) from getting a hearing is speculative at best. Further, Biden made the speech in June - four months after Scalia passed. So... yeah, Biden in 1992 really has nothing to do with the obstructionist behavior by the Republicans in keeping Garland from getting a vote. Except we both know it certainly does. But nice try. You can keep your head buried and I will fight for you right to continue to do it.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 09:56 AM) Actually we all know that never in the history of the United States of America has a Supreme Court nominee been ignored out of the opportunity to even get a vote. Garland's nomination process was also the longest in the history of the United States of America. I think a better question is you know how the Congressional approval process for the Supreme Court works, right? I do, but clearly you don't. They do not have to bring a candidate up. And former VP Biden agrees.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 10:34 AM) Electoral college is the will of the people. According to Brett, Trump didnt try to "win" the popular vote. And the evidence mounts even more.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 10:19 AM) 1. Republicans a year ago: The people should decide 2. The people vote for Hillary Clinton, but Electoral College saddles us with Trump 3. Therefore, Hillary Clinton or Obama, as the last majority President, should be given the choice. You do know how the election process works, right? I am always amazed that you all reach new levels of low each and every day.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) You said what the GOP did to Garland was to get the "will of the people". No, it was obstructionism, pure and simple. Question now is, what do the Dems do? Your former VP Joe Biden disagrees with you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 08:10 AM) Districts need to have roughly the same number of people, so simple shapes don't work. There are other requirements as well to ensure minority representation. Anywhere with major cities pretty much ensures you'll have at least some funky boundaries. However, you can do what Iowa does, which is to have an independent nonpartisan committee that sets the boundaries. That at least has the boundaries drawn in ways to maximize fair and equal representation with limits on partisan gaming. No, to me that's prejudice. Basic shapes can encompass pretty much the sizes of districts. But skewing them to fit a "minority" group is wrong.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You don't actually believe the Dems are obstructing here, but that the GOP wasn't with Garland. You know 100% it's both, but are unwilling to acknowledge it. I refuse to believe you are so blinded by partisan bias to actually believe it's only this (possible) Dem action that would be obstruction. Show me where I said the Republicans have never been obstructionists please.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:45 AM) This is the dumbest reason yet. It is a cycle, which means it is always going on in some stage. A cycle, by definition, is a never ending circle. can't decide if this is serious

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:42 AM) You played the part of "hyper-partisan Republican" well for a while, but you pushed it a little too far, flew a little too close to the sun and outed yourself. Whatever helps you out I guess.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:37 AM) Troll confirmed If that is what you are confessing to, my hats off to you.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:37 AM) Brett, do you honestly believe that the Republicans didn't engage in obstructionism over the past 8 years? Do you honestly believe they didn't bend many. many times? (to help you answer see "Power of the Purse"

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:36 AM) It was almost an entire year out. "The election cycle" doesn't mean much of anything given that we have insanely long campaigns and election processes. The people decided who they wanted to nominate justices when they elected Obama in 2012. Republicans also said they would block Clinton's nominees if she won, which contradicts that argument entirely. The election cycle is about a year. Sorry if you have issues with that. The people were ready to allow the election process to decide. You'd have no issues if it were Hillary. Republicans said they would let the election decide. Show the evidence of mass folks saying if Hillary won they'd let the seat remain vacant. I won't stop breathing.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:34 AM) Trump filed his candidacy for 2020 hours after his inauguration. I guess that means we're in an election cycle and he shouldn't get to choose? This whole "in an election cycle" was something invented by Republicans to steal a SCOTUS seat. We live in separate realities. Denying what an election cycle is and using the term "steal" is a liberal coping mechanism. It's analogous with using the term abortion for murder.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:21 AM) Lmao. A crushing blow. They literally have nothing to lose. They have been trying to play nice for the last 8 years. Now they should do everything they can to make it as hard as possible for this nut to put anyone on the Supreme court or any law passed. The ones who don't should be primaried when they are up for election. And with that strategy you'll see a super majority in the Houses of Congress for the Republicans. Go ahead and be obstructionists.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:15 AM) Exactly. If I'm the democrats, I make it clear - nominate Merrick Garland, and they will both confirm him AND promise no filibuster on any future nominee during Trump's 4 years. That puts things back to the way it should work, and pops the balloon on continued obstructionism. What the Democrats are threatening is obstructionism. This isn't a point of negotiation and the Republicans need to finally grow a spine and stop bending to whatever the Democrats want like they did thru the eight years of President Obama and make a stand. Garland was not selected. Get over it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:14 AM) So why is the distinction ok at 12 months but not 24? Please lay out a rational argument for the difference. You aren't allowed to say "the court should be filled" when you had no issue whatsoever with the court remaining unfilled for a year. I'll mention it a third time now, it happened during an election cycle.

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:00 AM) I literally can't believe people fall for these arguments. Scalia didn't die a week before the election, during the transition period afterwards. He died with nearly a full year remaining in Obama's term. Republicans said they were going to hold out through Clinton's term if she was elected too. It was 100% a power grab. The Constitution doesn't have a method of actually making the Senate do their job, so Republicans took advantage by not doing it. They successfully stole a SCOTUS seat. It was done during the election cycle. The Republicans said they would let the people decide.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 07:09 AM) We can decide in 2020. Why is 11 1/2 months an ok amount of time to wait but not 4 years? The court should be filled. If Scalia would have passed say mid-term, there would be no call to wait the two years as the people already voted for President Obama. In this case it was deemed by many that President Obama was not the same man elected in 2012 and in the middle of an election cycle, the decision was made to allow the people have a voice. Admirably really. EDIT: If there is an opening in the next election cycle for President, I'll be good with waiting for the election again.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 10:36 PM) RBG needs to not die, and Anthony Kennedy needs to not retire like he's now threatening. Dems should block this nom out of principle, but it was a shrewd move by Trump to pick someone reasonable, even if I wholeheartedly disagree with him on everything AND the way he interprets the constitution... The Republicans did what the Democrats refuse to and that is let the people decide. The people elected the President that made it perfectly clear he would replace the spot with an Originalist. If the people would have elected Hillary, we'd have the hearing on Garland. As such, if the Democrats really do try and filibuster this, it's going to turn off much of America and could be a crushing blow to the Democratic party.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 26, 2016 -> 03:27 PM) Obstruction now, Obstruction forever! Make sure you repeat that tonight with what the Democrats are planning.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 03:42 PM) I would suggest that is making things worse, not better, in terms of removing gerrymandering. It's by nature a partisan effort. Not to say it's evil or anything, it's part of the current game. Just that it does nothing to get us to a better place overall. I agree. I think you just have to do basic splitting. Something like squares and rectangles, none of this free form.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) Also of note for the 2018 Midterms - control of the US house, and control of the state houses, means control over districting (gerrymandering - which both parties do all the time) in 2020. That's a big deal, because the biggest reason the US house has remained so red in the last decade is the 2010 census and redistricting efforts. bottom line is gerrymandering is how moth sides stay in power. It's bad for America.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Jan 30, 2017 -> 01:17 PM) I assume you deny the existence of gerrymandering as well, right? Have you seen how the democrats keep control of cook?