Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hmmm. Interesting. I thought it was because the voters should have a say on it. Wasn't that the argument of the GOP?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Why should Trump even get a pick?

Voters should get to decide with the next general election.

What? That's not how it works.

\\

That's not what Trump, Mitch, and the majority of voters for the GOP said.

Not only that, but as the election day came closer and it looked like Hillary would win, there were some GOP senators saying they should refuse Hillary for all four of her years, as well.

Yes. SCOTUS is now the 2nd most powerful branch of government in a much expanded government.

Are you saying that Trump, Mitch, the GOP establishment, FoxNews, a huge swatch of GOP voters, and many posters here on our very own forum lied?

 Da Boss wrote:
Hmmm. Interesting. I thought it was because the voters should have a say on it. Wasn't that the argument of the GOP?

The hypocrisy of both parties is staggering.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Are you saying that Trump, Mitch, the GOP establishment, FoxNews, a huge swatch of GOP voters, and many posters here on our very own forum lied?

Ah, both sides. Yes, I remember that one. It's where you point out that the Right is pretty terrible, and then we say "Both sides are terrible!". It's very soothing.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ah, both sides. Yes, I remember that one. It's where you point out that the Right is pretty terrible, and then we say "Both sides are terrible!". It's very soothing.

I know right. Because clearly one side is always right and never flips depending on who is in power.

 Da Boss wrote:
Ah, both sides. Yes, I remember that one. It's where you point out that the Right is pretty terrible, and then we say "Both sides are terrible!". It's very soothing.

Yeah the depths of hypocrisy and lack of common decency that the right and posters from the right are showing is concerning

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

I love the one where the right want to allow the All-Powerful Hand Of Private Business to ban gay folks from their stores, and then bitches and complains when said All-Powerful Hand bans the right from their stores.

And then, naturally, the liberal media talks about the death of civility, and how doing that is unacceptable, ignoring the fact that the right is advocating for the same thing but with more burning crosses and broken rainbows.

Trump & Co wants to nominate and confirm a new judge before the midterms.

Who would have thought.

I'm waiting for the conversational grenade (AKA "dead cat") that will be thrown into the thread to stop this discussion of obvious hypocrisy.

Good news for the Trump Administration today - Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

Even if Kennedy wasn't an extreme progressive - he was more of a mildly conservative wildcard at best.

Ideally we can get a more conservative Justice or another Scalia leaning Justice next.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm waiting for the conversational grenade (AKA "dead cat") that will be thrown into the thread to stop this discussion of obvious hypocrisy.

My wiener dog says Cat people are hollow inside.

On that we agree. Though I'll not be getting another dog til I retire. Need to have the time to spend on it.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Good news for the Trump Administration today - Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

Even if Kennedy wasn't an extreme progressive - he was more of a mildly conservative wildcard at best.

Ideally we can get a more conservative Justice or another Scalia leaning Justice next.

Nominate me! I will impartally decide all cases with the power of the magic 8 ball.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Good news for the Trump Administration today - Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

Even if Kennedy wasn't an extreme progressive - he was more of a mildly conservative wildcard at best.

Ideally we can get a more conservative Justice or another Scalia leaning Justice next.

Nope. By their own well-established policies the republicans are obligated to nominate a Kennedy clone to maintain balance on the court. Nominating a conservative justice would be unacceptable.

(Of course we know they'll do it, because the republican party has no moral principles besides pure need for power and will reverse its positions the moment it becomes convenient.)

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Good news for the Trump Administration today - Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

Even if Kennedy wasn't an extreme progressive - he was more of a mildly conservative wildcard at best.

Ideally we can get a more conservative Justice or another Scalia leaning Justice next.

Nope. By their own well-established policies the republicans are obligated to nominate a Kennedy clone to maintain balance on the court. Nominating a conservative justice would be unacceptable.

(Of course we know they'll do it, because the republican party has no moral principles besides pure need for power and will reverse its positions the moment it becomes convenient.)

I ... Agree with that.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Good news for the Trump Administration today - Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

Even if Kennedy wasn't an extreme progressive - he was more of a mildly conservative wildcard at best.

Ideally we can get a more conservative Justice or another Scalia leaning Justice next.

Nope. By their own well-established policies the republicans are obligated to nominate a Kennedy clone to maintain balance on the court. Nominating a conservative justice would be unacceptable.

(Of course we know they'll do it, because the republican party has no moral principles besides pure need for power and will reverse its positions the moment it becomes convenient.)

Any choice that would slow down drug legalization and shut down a lot of possible future Trudeau tier progressive ideas would be ideal

A mildly leaning conservative Justice would do. If he's a younger judge? Even better

Not the Justice the Constitution needs, but the partisan Justice conservatives desire!

 Stevefamine wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stevefamine wrote:
Good news for the Trump Administration today - Justice Anthony Kennedy retired.

Even if Kennedy wasn't an extreme progressive - he was more of a mildly conservative wildcard at best.

Ideally we can get a more conservative Justice or another Scalia leaning Justice next.

Nope. By their own well-established policies the republicans are obligated to nominate a Kennedy clone to maintain balance on the court. Nominating a conservative justice would be unacceptable.

(Of course we know they'll do it, because the republican party has no moral principles besides pure need for power and will reverse its positions the moment it becomes convenient.)

Any choice that would slow down drug legalization and shut down a lot of possible future Trudeau tier progressive ideas would be ideal

A mildly leaning conservative Justice would do. If he's a younger judge? Even better

I am genuinely curious: Do you have no consistent morality?

 d-usa wrote:
Not the Justice the Constitution needs, but the partisan Justice conservatives desire!

I'm reading through his Wikipedia now. He seems like a fair fellow overall


edit:

 Da Boss wrote:
I am genuinely curious: Do you have no consistent morality?

I'm one of the rare members on DakkaDakka that holds a primarily conservative view.

 Stevefamine wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Not the Justice the Constitution needs, but the partisan Justice conservatives desire!

Your state recently legalized Pot, it's all downhill from here

We'll see what the future holds; the Justice seems to be getting a fair bit of hate online for retiring but the man is 81. Did they expect him to stay until he's 85+

reading through his Wikipedia now. He seems like a fair fellow overall

Well in a decade or so most of the baby boomers will be dead and then you won't have to worry about states legalizing pot, it'll be federally recognized

I also love how the party of smaller government and leaving people’s personal lives alone wants to continue massively expanding government power to lock up nonviolent drug users and actively make the majority of the populace’s lives worse by propping up private industry.

I think retiring at 81 is more than fair, actually. It's up to the judge themselves when they want to stop. Most of us get to retire long before that.

Legalizing pot though, *shrug*. I'm not a fan of the drug myself, but it does not seem to have caused a collapse of civilization where it has been legalized in other countries.

 Stevefamine wrote:
Any choice that would slow down drug legalization and shut down a lot of possible future Trudeau tier progressive ideas would be ideal

Yes, because locking people in prison for long sentences (after which their employment prospects are terrible and odds of ending up back in prison high) for a victimless crime, using a drug that is less harmful than alcohol and tobacco, is good policy and efforts to change it must be opposed at all costs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stevefamine wrote:
I'm one of the rare members on DakkaDakka that holds a primarily conservative view.

What does "conservative" even mean? You claim to be conservative, but then you endorse big-government policies regulating an individual's choices about whether to use pot or alcohol. And you support a party that is now completely reversing its position on when and how a president should nominate supreme court justices, as if "conservative" means nothing besides "we want to win elections and have power".

editt

So it does not bother you that your party says one thing and then does the opposite?

 d-usa wrote:
Trump & Co wants to nominate and confirm a new judge before the midterms.

Who would have thought.

Advise and Consent. Who has control over the Senate?

 Da Boss wrote:
So it does not bother you that your party says one thing and then does the opposite?

Said to every party or organization made ever...

 Da Boss wrote:
So it does not bother you that your party says one thing and then does the opposite?

Welcome to US politics 101.