Then and Now . . . Hypocrisy of the Left

[rushmc 23]

DanG

Quote

What is going on in the courts today is not even close to the Constitutional checks and balances the framers intended

Well, I disagree, but that's okay. We can disagree about that.

Truth is, next time a Republican gets the White House I doubt you are going to complain about him packing the courts to get his way.

It is all about need in this case
The 2nd does not have the case load to warrent these judges
The court says so itself
THAT is why the republican were blocking those specifically

Packing and replacing are two different things
And if you care to look back at my posts I support an up or down vote
But Obama is NOT being treated any worse than anyone else

But one might think otherwise because of how the media parrots our cryer in chief

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[DanG 1]

Quote

And if you care to look back at my posts I support an up or down vote

If you're in favor of an up or down vote, how can you be against a measure that guarantees an up or down vote?

Quote

But Obama is NOT being treated any worse than anyone else

Well, yes he is. A historic number of nominees have been denied the up or down vote you say you want.

- Dan G

[rushmc 23]

***

Quote

If you're in favor of an up or down vote, how can you be against a measure that guarantees an up or down vote?

you do not read my post do you
or at least you lack comprehension skills

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,594]

rushmc

you do not read my post do you
or at least you lack comprehension skills

We've just been over this. You're not allowed to bitch until you learn English. It's your fault.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

you do not read my post do you
or at least you lack comprehension skills

I did read your post. You said you're against filling the spots on the 2nd because they don't have the case load.

Then you said you favor an up or down vote.

Those are two separate comments. I asked a question on the second comment. That's not a lack of reading comprehension, it's how a discussion works.

- Dan G

[kelpdiver 2]

rushmc

It is all about need in this case
The 2nd does not have the case load to warrent these judges
The court says so itself
THAT is why the republican were blocking those specifically

Packing and replacing are two different things

We know exactly why the Republicans are blocking - a child can figure it out.

You keep referring to court packing, yet then try to suggest there's a difference between packing and replacing. You really don't understand the word in context.

FDR didn't like the pushback he got from the Supreme Court (a good example of a check by another branch) and thus proposed a substantial increase in its membership count, so he could then alter the ratio with a bunch of new members. This is one of his black marks, and rightfully so.

But there's no difference between his proposal and the Republicans who want to maintain the status quo by shrinking the membership of the 2nd.

The appellate circuits are terribly uneven in sizing and it would certainly behoove us to shrink the 9th, but given what we see with state level redistricting and gerrymandering, I shudder to think how it would go if DC sought out to do the same for the courts.

And please give up on this fantasy that The Media gives Obama a free pass.

[kallend 2,146]

rushmc

*********

Quote

Looking at all of Obama’s nominees across his administration, he has suffered unprecedented levels of obstruction, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yep, that's a paper that is always sympathetic to Obama

Numbers do not lie
Unless you do not agree with them of course

So are you disagreeing with "There were 68 individual nominees blocked under all previous administrations prior to Obama taking office and 79 (so far) during Obama’s term, for a total of 147."

nope
But I have put forth information that puts the numbers you posted in the proper perspective

and that persepective is Obama is not be treated any worse of differently than Bush was by the Dems




Nonsense. Obama has had more nominees blocked than Bush plus ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS COMBINED. Saying his treatment is not different is just absurd.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.